'You don't take a job as a prostitute, we cut your benefits'

[Darth Wong]

Why don't you fuck off, Mike?

Why don't you? You jump into a thread on a high horse when you're not even sure what you're talking about, you puff your chest out about having superior knowledge of the subject, you tell everyone else that they're full of shit, you make the incredibly inflammatory equation of this situation to "rape", and then when all of your bullshit is shown to be precisely that, all you do is say "oops, let's just move on".

[Edi]

Ah, indeed. Did a perfect job of falling on my sword, didn't I? Well, humility is good for the soul, as they say, so my apologies to everyone I offended, and twice to you because of that latest post of mine.

Edi

[Thinkmarble]

Mhm, just to clear one thing up.
The unemployment/work office/ageny is an state ageny tasked with two thing:
- paying out unemployed benefits
- getting unemployed person back into the work force, in reality they only get administrated

As you get money if you tell the unemployment agency that you want to get a job quite a number of people who do not actually want a job tell the agency "Hey give me money, want a job".

And the number is actually 11% being unemployed ( that is 5 million of 83 million ).

[Darth Wong]

OK, hugs for Edi.

As you get money if you tell the unemployment agency that you want to get a job quite a number of people who do not actually want a job tell the agency "Hey give me money, want a job".

That reminds me of the guys who used to come to the plant where I used to work in Mississauga asking the secretary to sign a form saying that they had come for a job interview. They had no interest in the interview itself; just the form, to take back to the unemployment office. It would be funny if it weren't so contemptible.

And the number is actually 11% being unemployed ( that is 5 million of 83 million ).

Well, 10.7% does round to 11%. But precise unemployment figures are always a bit dodgy because different countries calculate unemployment differently. The last figures I saw, Canada's unemployment rate would drop by roughly 2% if we calculated it the same way the US does.

[Frank Hipper]

Dunno about anyone else, but the thought of getting hugged by a Sith Lord curdles my blood.

[Darth Wong]

Dunno about anyone else, but the thought of getting hugged by a Sith Lord curdles my blood.

Would you feel more comfortable if it was described as a rib-breaking bear hug followed by disembowelment with a lightsabre?

[Antares]

According to the BBC as of last October, "German unemployment is running at 10.7%". You are either exaggerating or just plain bullshitting the problem. That's higher than Canada's 7.2% unemployment rate for 2004, but not so much higher that we can throw out all of the rules.

20% are correct only for the "new states" in the east, but otherwise fantasy. The region in bavaria were i am from got a maximum of 7%.
Bavaria in average got 6.7

Source:
http://www.br-online.de/bayern-heute/ar ... /index.xml

Another source with some statistics for bavaria 2002-2004:
http://www.stmwivt.bayern.de/pdf/wirtsc ... smarkt.pdf
(first page: 1st col. = bavaria, 2nd col = "old states", 3rd col = Germany 4th col = "new states")

If someone really wants to find work, they can. Most people who can't find work cannot do so because they are inflexible about working conditions or locales (refusing to relocate is a common problem in finding work).

This is also my attitude. Even with some changes in the social system we still have enough people running around thinking they are god almighty and deserve a job which exactly fits their expectations. Thus they refuse any job which doesnt fit. Most often this works because the parents are able to support their children.

Other include people who think doing bullshit during studies is cool, yet they want good jobs after finishing their thesis. Nobody wants to invest but everybody wants the best.

[Frank Hipper]

Dunno about anyone else, but the thought of getting hugged by a Sith Lord curdles my blood.

Would you feel more comfortable if it was described as a rib-breaking bear hug followed by disembowelment with a lightsabre?

Yes.
Honesty is always best.

[LadyTevar]

To make an analogy, it is the difference between saying "Spread your legs or I will stab you" and "spread your legs, or I will beat you"

Bullshit. It's the difference between saying 'spread your legs and I will stab you" and "spread your legs or I won't buy you that nice leather jacket".

Wong, are you deliberately trying to tick people off?

How'bout your wife was told by her boss that she'd be fired if she didn't give him a blowjob every day? Is that coercion? Harrassment? Is that forcing her into sexual acts?

So what's the difference between a Governmental Agency telling a person to take a sex job or lose their benefits?

[Darth Wong]

To make an analogy, it is the difference between saying "Spread your legs or I will stab you" and "spread your legs, or I will beat you"

Bullshit. It's the difference between saying 'spread your legs and I will stab you" and "spread your legs or I won't buy you that nice leather jacket".

Wong, are you deliberately trying to tick people off?

How'bout your wife was told by her boss that she'd be fired if she didn't give him a blowjob every day? Is that coercion? Harrassment? Is that forcing her into sexual acts?

That's sexual harassment in the workplace, obviously. As she must obviously have a job to be in that situation, she is not demanding money for not doing anything.

So what's the difference between a Governmental Agency telling a person to take a sex job or lose their benefits?

Easy: a job and an entitlement are two different things. One should be grateful for any handouts beyond what you need just to survive, instead of demanding them as an entitlement.

[LadyTevar]

So what's the difference between a Governmental Agency telling a person to take a sex job or lose their benefits?

Easy: a job and an entitlement are two different things. One should be grateful for any handouts beyond what you need just to survive, instead of demanding them as an entitlement.

So, if you or your wife needed those handouts, you'd let the government talk her (or you) into a sex-based job such as stripping or prostitution?

[Gunhead]

This seems to be heated debate.

There has been a lot of talk about the amount of benefits people are entitled to. I'm no expert on the german welfare system, but were I live, people pay unemployment "insurance" along with taxes. Insurance may not be the right word for it, basically it's paid to cover the cost if and when you get unemployed. If this is the case in Germany also, wouldn't the woman be entitled to her full benefits since she already has pulled her weight by working. Granted she's only 25 so her work history can't be that long.
In a way the money paid to the state is her's, the state is just giving it back now when she needs it.

-Gunhead

[Darth Wong]

So what's the difference between a Governmental Agency telling a person to take a sex job or lose their benefits?

Easy: a job and an entitlement are two different things. One should be grateful for any handouts beyond what you need just to survive, instead of demanding them as an entitlement.

So, if you or your wife needed those handouts, you'd let the government talk her (or you) into a sex-based job such as stripping or prostitution?

"Needed" for what? I already said that handouts beyond what you need to survive cannot be considered an entitlement. You're deliberately confusing the situation by mixing up such extra handouts with subsistence welfare.

[Darth Wong]

This seems to be heated debate.

There has been a lot of talk about the amount of benefits people are entitled to. I'm no expert on the german welfare system, but were I live, people pay unemployment "insurance" along with taxes. Insurance may not be the right word for it, basically it's paid to cover the cost if and when you get unemployed. If this is the case in Germany also, wouldn't the woman be entitled to her full benefits since she already has pulled her weight by working. Granted she's only 25 so her work history can't be that long.
In a way the money paid to the state is her's, the state is just giving it back now when she needs it.

-Gunhead

You're misinterpreting the concept of insurance. It's not an investment scheme.

[Gunhead]

Ok, I just don't know what else to call it.

What I really want to know do you agree with the principle?
Like I said I don't know if it applies here, but isn't it how the system should work? Specially in this case giving the woman some time to find a job she's qualified to do, that doesn't include sex with strangers would be reasonable.

Oh yeah, here you get full benefits for a maximum of 500 days, after that it's only the basics. The amount is based on how long you've worked, I think it's pretty fair.

-Gunhead

[Darth Wong]

Ok, I just don't know what else to call it.

What I really want to know do you agree with the principle?
Like I said I don't know if it applies here, but isn't it how the system should work? Specially in this case giving the woman some time to find a job she's qualified to do, that doesn't include sex with strangers would be reasonable.

She described herself as an unemployed waitress; she may not be qualified to do anything that you would describe as skilled labour.

Oh yeah, here you get full benefits for a maximum of 500 days, after that it's only the basics. The amount is based on how long you've worked, I think it's pretty fair.

-Gunhead

Once again though, the concept of insurance is that people who meet the criteria get payouts. If, in their judgement, she isn't trying hard enough to get a job, she doesn't get the payout. It's not "her" money. And from information posted earlier, she must have turned down several other job offers prior to this one in order for this to kill her unemployment benefits. Seriously, it really looks to me like this person wanted this to happen so she would have an excuse to take this to the courts.

[Phil Skayhan]

She described herself as an unemployed waitress; she may not be qualified to do anything that you would describe as skilled labour.

I have to assume that Germany's unemployment benefits include extensions for training and/or education (I realize that universities in Deutchland are free but what about tech schools). If such opportunities exist and she did not take advantage of them even for the sole purpose of remaining on the benefit roles, it would lend further credence to the impression that she prefered to sit on her laurels and collect a check.

Could one of our Gernam members give me some info on this please.

[Gunhead]

Well if she's deliberately dragging this to the courts so she can champion a cause, my sympathy really goes out the window.

If that is.

There's a problem in the system, so noted. On the other hand, if this goes to court, and she wins, others could claim that work X is morally wrong to them.
I know it's far fetched, but people have thought up screwier things. Then there is te fact that she's a woman and if they're allowed to refuse work in the sex industry, shouldn't men be allowed to do so too. Again a bit of stretch but could happen.


-Gunhead

[Patrick Ogaard]

This seems to be heated debate.

There has been a lot of talk about the amount of benefits people are entitled to. I'm no expert on the german welfare system, but were I live, people pay unemployment "insurance" along with taxes. Insurance may not be the right word for it, basically it's paid to cover the cost if and when you get unemployed. If this is the case in Germany also, wouldn't the woman be entitled to her full benefits since she already has pulled her weight by working. Granted she's only 25 so her work history can't be that long.
In a way the money paid to the state is her's, the state is just giving it back now when she needs it.

-Gunhead

That would be Arbeitslosengeld I (AKA ALG I). That's the unemployment benefit paid for 8 to 18 months dependent on the number of months of contributions during employment, with the level of compensation dependent on the last net income.

ALG II takes up the slack after ALG I benefits run out, so I guess it would typically be after a year or so of unemployment that ALG II kicks in. Of course, lots of people have been unemployed for long enough that they took a bellyflop straight into ALG II after being on Arbeitslosenhilfe (unemployment relief/assistance) for long enough to have become resigned to it. ALG II is the cattle prod that's supposed to make people go back to work whether they want to or not, whether it's the job they want to do or not. Of course, that doesn't help those people who can't or won't move to where there is work.

[Justforfun000]

I just read through this entire thread. *phew*. About 4 pages back I meant to post a point, and finally Gunhead brought it up.

This is my take on it. If you pay money for Employment insurance, then you are involved in a contract between yourself and the government involving a safety net to get you through a period of being unemployed.

Obviously the rules are set in place and determined ahead of time. Now if you become unemployed and are entitled to a certain level of support for a period of time, then to start with, this is something you don't look at as a handout. You are not a beggar, you are ENTITLED to this support because you paid for it. That's the first thing.

The second thing is that there should definitely be certain exemptions to what the government considers to be a FAIR opportunity for employment. Obviously medical issues like someone wheelchair bound should make them ineligible for pizza delivery. This is the simplest type of obvious exemption. More subtle things could be military service involving violence to someone who is an avowed pacifist, or working in a slaughterhouse when you are a sworn vegetarian. The average person would tend to agree that we should have the right to hold certain moral positions that would be unfair to hold any form of coercion over, especially when it applies to something as basic as living expenses.

So with that all said, we have a case where the government is making one simple demand.

If you do not accept this job as a prostitute, we will alter the current status of your ENTITLED benefits and reduce them to something less. That's the simple demand. In this case they are PENALIZING her for not agreeing to being a whore with absolutely no regard to her personal morals on having indiscriminate sex with strangers. Not only is it a MORAL issue, but it can conceivably be called a hazardous profession. The more multiple partners you have, the far greater statistical chance you have of contracting STD's. Even though HIV can be fairly well protected against with condoms (although NOT 100%), others like Syphilis, Chlamydia and Gonorrhea are MUCH more easily contracted. I'm not aware of many people using condoms very often when dealing with oral sex, so if thats done without one, those last three diseases are quite easily contracted.

Bottom line here is that regardless of what their laws are, they SHOULD make certain that prostitution would fall under a very reasonable "exemption" as a valid job offer. Any other way you slice it you are punishing her for not accepting a job as a hooker. That is not in any way, shape or form, a fair thing to do. She paid into her insurance, she is entitled to it without unreasonable demands as controversial as becoming a sex trade worker.

[Alyrium Denryle]

According to the BBC as of last October, "German unemployment is running at 10.7%". You are either exaggerating or just plain bullshitting the problem. That's higher than Canada's 7.2% unemployment rate for 2004, but not so much higher that we can throw out all of the rules.

Sorry, pulled it from memory, German class last semester. Must have confused it with the number of people who want the wall back, I apologize.

Would you define not wanting to be a whore as inflexible mike? I am pretty sure the vast majority of people would not want to do that kind of work. How about inability to relocate. She has no job, I looked it up, unemploiyment in germany is around 335 Euros(430 ish USD) a month in west germany,

She has no job, therefore she is not working. And if she was searching full-time every day for work, I seriously doubt that she would be unable to find anything but a prostitution gig.

Care to prove that mike? Maybe her area has full employment in the number of jobs available. Seeing as german labor laws are pretty damn draconian for the employer, it only makes sense that they wouldn’t be hiring.

What kind of bullfuckery is this, asshole? You're saying I have to prove my contention that you won't starve on German welfare, because the default is to assume that you will?

You are asserting a claim mike, you are the one making an assertion. However, I did the math for you. She gets around 430 USD equivalent in unemployment per month, if she has been out of a job for more than a year. If she has been out of a job for less than a year, she gets 60% of her previous income, which for the sake of argument is 30000 euros… Not a whole lot of money either way you look at it for a grand total of the equivalent of 18000 USD. Not a whole lot of money my friend.

Now, lets take the average cost of living in germany, which in 1998 was around 500 USD per month, according to This She cant even pay her living expenses. Let along getting her benefits cut.

You know, creationists are fond of inventing false analogies to "explain" a position that they cannot directly defend too. You can dress up your "she will starve" bullshit in a thousand different ways, but it will still be bullshit.

Well, I just showed that the analogy is accurate. So, um..yeah.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, addendum: The cost of living listed above is for rent, energy and maintainence. It doesnt take into account food, travel etc etc etc

[Crown]

Ah, indeed. Did a perfect job of falling on my sword, didn't I? Well, humility is good for the soul, as they say, so my apologies to everyone I offended, and twice to you because of that latest post of mine.

Edi

Don't feel too bad, I took the 'Company fires employees who smoke' thread like, five posts more than I should have, until Mike patiently explained the position clearly for me. In truth his position was always clear, but I couldn't grasp it until his last post.

*shrug*

It's just the way it is sometimes.

[Thinkmarble]

She has no job, I looked it up, unemploiyment in germany is around 335 Euros(430 ish USD) a month in west germany,

Plus rent and heating plus free health care.
I live on 420 euro +rent/heating/healthcare per month and that is plenty.

@DarthWong
The 11% were actually aimed at Alyrium

I have to assume that Germany's unemployment benefits include extensions for training and/or education (I realize that universities in Deutchland are free but what about tech schools)

The german educational system is slightly complicated.
To make it short:
If you study at a university (Universität, Fachhochschule, and I think Berufsakademie) the state will pay your cost of living, if you can show that your parents/partner can not pay it. Half of it as an loan.
If you go to vocational school (to become an accountant, plumber or programmer) then you normally have also a job where get on-the-job training and you get paid by that company. (Duale System).

[Alyrium Denryle]

Plus rent and heating plus free health care.
I live on 420 euro +rent/heating/healthcare per month and that is plenty.

Really, I didnt know that rent was included in that number