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

dr. what · Post by **dr. what** » 2005-01-30 10:53am

Please tell me that this is a joke

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that it had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people who turn down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from the potential employer.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

Miss Garweg said that women who had worked in call centres had been offered jobs on telephone sex lines. At one job centre in the city of Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview as a "nude model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in the sex industry can also advertise in job centres, a move that came into force this month. A job centre that refuses to accept the advertisement can be sued.

Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.

Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12 prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.

Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court. Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut links to organised crime.

Miss Garweg believes that pressure on job centres to meet employment targets will soon result in them using their powers to cut the benefits of women who refuse jobs providing sexual services.

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.

"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."

acesand8s · Post by **acesand8s** » 2005-01-30 11:14am

Yeah, either the Telegraph picked up a false story or its blowing something way out of proportion. From what I've heard on other message boards, the German media is completely silent on this; if it were true, they'd be talking about it.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2005-01-30 11:30am

The concept is fucking disgusting. We'll never get rid of prostituton, so I'm all for legalizing and controlling it in a reasonable manner. But effectively forcing a woman into that "job" is beyond disgusting, it's infuriating.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-01-30 11:59am

i´m afraid this loophole is indeed another bad thing the reform brings with it.

women are not forced to do the job but they get less money if they decide to turn down several job offers.

i wonder if and how they´re going to close this loophole.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-01-30 12:01pm

this is also in conflict with the prostitution laws which prohibit ecplicitly forced prostitution. and to me this seems like forced prostitution.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-30 12:23pm

salm wrote:this is also in conflict with the prostitution laws which prohibit ecplicitly forced prostitution. and to me this seems like forced prostitution.

It sure as hell qualifies as forced by any reasonable standards. One would hope they close this disgusting loophole quickly.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-30 12:38pm

Stormbringer wrote:
salm wrote:this is also in conflict with the prostitution laws which prohibit ecplicitly forced prostitution. and to me this seems like forced prostitution.
It sure as hell qualifies as forced by any reasonable standards. One would hope they close this disgusting loophole quickly.

There are lots of other reasons why someone might refuse to take a certain job; the real problem is the policy of penalizing people for making such a decision, regardless of the nature of the job. Making a special exemption for prostitution would be silly.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2005-01-30 02:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
salm wrote:this is also in conflict with the prostitution laws which prohibit ecplicitly forced prostitution. and to me this seems like forced prostitution.
It sure as hell qualifies as forced by any reasonable standards. One would hope they close this disgusting loophole quickly.
There are lots of other reasons why someone might refuse to take a certain job; the real problem is the policy of penalizing people for making such a decision, regardless of the nature of the job. Making a special exemption for prostitution would be silly.

The problem is, in Germany it is easier to live off their equivalent of welfare, (and live quite comfortably, I must add, unlike its US's counterpart) than to work. As a result, many people take the obvious course. Most Russian immigrants to Germany, for example, don't work for a living.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-30 02:50pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
salm wrote:this is also in conflict with the prostitution laws which prohibit ecplicitly forced prostitution. and to me this seems like forced prostitution.
It sure as hell qualifies as forced by any reasonable standards. One would hope they close this disgusting loophole quickly.
There are lots of other reasons why someone might refuse to take a certain job; the real problem is the policy of penalizing people for making such a decision, regardless of the nature of the job. Making a special exemption for prostitution would be silly.

Sorry if I feel that forcing a woman into selling her body is just a wee bit immoral.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-30 03:44pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: It sure as hell qualifies as forced by any reasonable standards. One would hope they close this disgusting loophole quickly.
There are lots of other reasons why someone might refuse to take a certain job; the real problem is the policy of penalizing people for making such a decision, regardless of the nature of the job. Making a special exemption for prostitution would be silly.
Sorry if I feel that forcing a woman into selling her body is just a wee bit immoral.

Oh look, a stupid self-righteous asshole who takes a cheesy opportunity to climb onto his high horse by completely ignoring the point!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-30 04:36pm

fgalkin wrote:The problem is, in Germany it is easier to live off their equivalent of welfare, (and live quite comfortably, I must add, unlike its US's counterpart) than to work. As a result, many people take the obvious course. Most Russian immigrants to Germany, for example, don't work for a living.

I agree; it's a serious problem when people on welfare are basically comfortable staying there forever. It appears their solution is to give them over-generous welfare and then threaten to take some of it away if they decide the person has turned down a job. That's a bizarre policy; suppose someone has environmental sensitivities and their only job prospect at the moment involves exposure to industrial chemicals that will cause them severe health difficulties? Would the same penalty apply?

AMX · Post by **AMX** » 2005-01-30 05:50pm

Darth Wong wrote:suppose someone has environmental sensitivities and their only job prospect at the moment involves exposure to industrial chemicals that will cause them severe health difficulties? Would the same penalty apply?

Of course not.
That job would be in violation of employee protection laws; so the employer would have to take care to prevent said exposure.
Failing that, nobody can legally force the would-be employee to actually take the job.

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2005-01-30 06:04pm

I am really torn about this topic...

It is really shitty for a government to force someone into prostitution in order for them to keep getting welfare checks.

But...

It is a legal job and the government has to find a way to encourage people to get off welfare and get back on their feet. Nothing is forcing her to take the job other than her pride and morals, which should be the first things out the door when it comes to the survival of your family.

I don't know, she is being offered a legitamate job where all she has to do is look sexy and screw people...it isn't like she is being sent off to a sweat shop...no pun intended.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-30 06:06pm

Darth Wong wrote:Oh look, a stupid self-righteous asshole who takes a cheesy opportunity to climb onto his high horse by completely ignoring the point!

Oh look, not all women want to be a whore and spread their legs for
a living! SHOCK! SURPRISE!

Morilore · Post by **Morilore** » 2005-01-30 06:22pm

Why doesn't anyone here understand the meaning of "missing the point!?"

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2005-01-30 06:36pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Oh look, a stupid self-righteous asshole who takes a cheesy opportunity to climb onto his high horse by completely ignoring the point!
Oh look, not all women want to be a whore and spread their legs for
a living! SHOCK! SURPRISE!

Not all people want to work shitty jobs (not in the sex industry) for minimum wage are you suggesting that they shouldn't have to do that either?

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-01-30 06:44pm

Plekhanov wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Oh look, a stupid self-righteous asshole who takes a cheesy opportunity to climb onto his high horse by completely ignoring the point!
Oh look, not all women want to be a whore and spread their legs for
a living! SHOCK! SURPRISE!
Not all people want to work shitty jobs (not in the sex industry) for minimum wage are you suggesting that they shouldn't have to do that either?

Making burgers is somewhat different to some people to letting a guy fuck you for half an hour and then getting a paycheck. As far as I know, making burgers is not against most peoples' morality.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2005-01-30 06:46pm

Steven Snyder wrote:
I don't know, she is being offered a legitamate job where all she has to do is look sexy and screw people...it isn't like she is being sent off to a sweat shop...no pun intended.

No, she is forced to engage in non-consensual sex over and over again.

Mike, I don't know how the German system works, but if the people behind it have a shred of intelligence, then the scenario you described will not occur. There should be employee protection laws against such things. Also, in the case of the woman, there is the law against forced prostitution. Thus, she needs only to bring that up to be allowed to decline to take the job.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-30 06:48pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Oh look, a stupid self-righteous asshole who takes a cheesy opportunity to climb onto his high horse by completely ignoring the point!
Oh look, not all women want to be a whore and spread their legs for
a living! SHOCK! SURPRISE!

Hey look, another dumb-shit who completely ignores the point! Flunked Reading Comprehension 101, did you Shep?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-30 06:50pm

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: Oh look, not all women want to be a whore and spread their legs for
a living! SHOCK! SURPRISE!
Not all people want to work shitty jobs (not in the sex industry) for minimum wage are you suggesting that they shouldn't have to do that either?
Making burgers is somewhat different to some people to letting a guy fuck you for half an hour and then getting a paycheck. As far as I know, making burgers is not against most peoples' morality.

You've obviously never had a job where you would be expected to expose yourself to hazardous chemicals. Believe it or not, there are plenty of jobs out there that people would have good reason not to take. Prostitution is hardly the only one. Read the fucking thread before firing off half-assed comments.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2005-01-30 06:58pm

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:Oh look, not all women want to be a whore and spread their legs for
a living! SHOCK! SURPRISE!
Not all people want to work shitty jobs (not in the sex industry) for minimum wage are you suggesting that they shouldn't have to do that either?
Making burgers is somewhat different to some people to letting a guy fuck you for half an hour and then getting a paycheck.

Why are they so different? What substantive differences are their between the two?

As far as I know, making burgers is not against most peoples' morality.

It's against mine as I'm a vegetarian, does that mean that in similar circumstances I should get to stay on the dole?

What if I also developed a morality that prohibited me from working for less than £50 an hour?

Post by **fgalkin** » 2005-01-30 07:02pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:
Plekhanov wrote: Not all people want to work shitty jobs (not in the sex industry) for minimum wage are you suggesting that they shouldn't have to do that either?
Making burgers is somewhat different to some people to letting a guy fuck you for half an hour and then getting a paycheck.
Why are they so different? What substantive differences are their between the two?

You don't know the difference between having a low-paying job and rape?:wtf:

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-30 07:06pm

Darth Wong wrote:You've obviously never had a job where you would be expected to expose yourself to hazardous chemicals.

Believe it or not, yes I have. I've spent two summers working as a laborer for a millwright that was essentially the maintenance department, there were plenty of things like hydrocloric acid, high percentage hydrogen peroxide, and plenty of carcinogens that we dealt with. And I was actually part of two moon-suit jobs during the course of the second summer. Of course I don't know about how it's done in Canada, but here in the US they try to make sure you have safety equipment so you're not exposed to those.

Darth Wong wrote:Believe it or not, there are plenty of jobs out there that people would have good reason not to take. Prostitution is hardly the only one. Read the fucking thread before firing off half-assed comments.

Pardon me if I don't feel that forcing someone into prositution and forcing them to take a job that's merely unpleasant is any where near the same.

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2005-01-30 07:11pm

fgalkin wrote:No, she is forced to engage in non-consensual sex over and over again.

Please explain how she is forced to do it?
There is absolutely nothing preventing her from not taking the job, or quitting if she has the job.

If she can make it on her own, the obviously she doesn't need government assistance. If she can't then the term "Beggars can't be Choosers" applies.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-01-30 07:22pm

Steven Snyder wrote:
fgalkin wrote:No, she is forced to engage in non-consensual sex over and over again.
Please explain how she is forced to do it?
There is absolutely nothing preventing her from not taking the job, or quitting if she has the job.

If she can make it on her own, the obviously she doesn't need government assistance. If she can't then the term "Beggars can't be Choosers" applies.

Other then the little fact that the government will cut her unemployment payments significantly unless she takes the job.