Pay employers who hire the unemployed

[AlphaCentauri]

Every month the government sends unemployment checks to millions of jobless Americans … for not working. What if those checks were diverted to employers who would hire those unemployed workers to cover a portion of their wages?

Under such a plan, the worker’s wage would be greater than the benefit. Taxpayers want to pay part, not all, of the worker’s wage.

Preference might be given to startups, restricted to small business, to specific industries, geographic areas and/or demographics (elderly, young, minorities), thereby giving Congress something to debate.

The employer would guarantee a length of employment of at least six months beyond the end of the program’s benefits that the companies received (the worker would not be terminated the moment his unemployment benefit ends).

The employer would benefit only by the number of people he employs that exceeds the number that were on his job roll three months before the start of the program. In other words, terminating 10 current employees and hiring 10 unemployed would result in zero funding eligibility. Exception: terminating a foreign employee overseas would not count against him.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/dec/26/pay-employers-who-hire-unemployed/

Interesting idea

[AlphaCentauri]

1. oops, looks like someone doesn't want to work and prefer the unemployment check n/t

it took 2 second to unrec this LOL

[ipaint]

11. That you think it is a lazy unemployed person who unrec'ed your thread

is all I need to know about your "politics". they stink.

[AlphaCentauri]

16. For the most part I think this idea would be like hands on training.

The economy needs jobs and to increase productivity, so what is the goal of diminishing an idea that could provide incentives to create new jobs?

[FLDCVADem]

17. I wonder the same thing n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

19. it won't surprise me if anyone that reject creative ideas like this one

start blaming immigrants for job loses.

[tonysam]

2. Uh, we aren't paid for "not working."

We are REQUIRED to pursue an ACTIVE job search.

This sounds like the same crap some politicians put out there for "working" for welfare benefits.

It isn't our fault employers lay us off or terminate us wrongfully.

There are already programs out there for the jobless to retrain.

What is this crap about "taxpayers"? Does the writer of the article KNOW AT ALL unemployment compensation is taxable?

[FLDCVADem]

4. Everything you say is true

But if the unemployment money you are being paid was instead paid to help offset hiring you, and you received wages higher than the unemployement check, wouldn't that be preferable?

I think this is a good idea.

[tonysam]

5. I don't want a punitive attitude towards me or other unemployed

Besides, companies aren't going to hire if there is no demand for their services.

The money one gets from UI goes right into the economy.

[FLDCVADem]

8. How in the world is this punitive?

That doesn't even make any sense.

[tonysam]

9. We're bums who are being paid not to work.

If you can't see the attitude displayed in that article, I don't know what to tell you.

The asshole who wrote the article thought we who are on UI aren't paying taxes and aren't taxpayers.

[FLDCVADem]

13. What I see is someone

that's reading stuff into the article that isn't even there. I see no attitude, rather I see an attempt to come up with a way to help the unemployed get jobs making more than they are being paid in unemployment. Why would you not support that?

[Obamanaut]

3. Georgia, IIRC, has a plan similar to this in place - similar, not exactly

the same.

[AlphaCentauri]

20. I've been looking for that information, can't find it n/t

[dysfunctional press]

6. would freelance contractors be considered 'employees'...?

if not, employers could 'fire' their contractors, and hire them(or someone else) on as an employee to replace them, and get government help with the paycheck- without creating any actual employment.

for instance- before the job went away, my wife was a contract employee at pampered chef's corporate headquarters- but her paychecks came from a staffing company with no corporate connection to pampered chef. and she was there for two years in that capacity. under this program, they could have terminated her contract, and then hire someone else to fill the position with taxpayer dollars- but they wouldn't have created any new job, or reduced the unemployment rolls.

[tonysam]

7. I would see where this could easily be abused by employers

What we really need is job creation, not punitive measures that claim we need to "work" for our benefits.

[FLDCVADem]

10. I'll ask again, how is this punitive?

Also, no one is suggesting that you work for your benefits - you would make more than the benefits, you would be working for a wage. Why is that so offensive to you?

[tonysam]

12. Read between the lines of the article

It says we are being paid not to work--that is a lie. It implies we who are unemployed don't pay taxes--that is a lie.

We need true job programs--not bullshit which further demeans people who are out of work.

[FLDCVADem]

14. You're not being truthful

It doesn't say you're being paid not to work, it doesn't imply that you aren't paying taxes, and it no way tried to demean the unemployed. The idea is to help the unemployed. If you don't want it, fine.

[FLDCVADem]

15. Why are you against working for pay higher than your benefits?

That's what this plan suggests and you are against it - why?

[AlphaCentauri]

18. I guess you have a point there that would be considered in any proposal.

Freelance workers sometimes free employers from providing employees certain benefits, it would be something to think about it.

[Thothmes]

21. If I was a small business man I would not touch this program

with ten foot pole. If I have a business need for an employee, why would I sign up for a program that locks me into a fixed term of employment. To add employees, I need a reasonable expectation that the added employees will add to my productive capability. The long term business prospects have to support the decision to add employees. Some govt program that ties my hands into the future and directes specific hires will not hack it.