dodo, you did point out ONE problem

and THAT problem would not be addressed with the solutions offered
except, indirectly, through the intern type of employment period that allows for TRAINING

but the solutions offered would address other PROBLEMS that are part of the unemployment situation

employers are able to give preferences for many reasons as long as they aren't based in the 'protected' classes, they already may choose to opt OUT of hiring an unemployed person JUST because of their employment status

many tend to actually shy away from hiring the unemployed or long term unemployed and an incentive to no longer exclude that demographic would be one solution to ONE problem

There have been solutions offered but not the one that is being inferred. You have but to read and understand the responses to determine what is what. Hint: it is not the one not working now so a new twist won't work either.

I'm sorry did you say something, this just does not make sense at all. What training, what classes, who opts out, and what solution?

What Training?

-You can accomplish this by allowing employers to hire folks receiving unemployment benefits by matching their benefits for six months

this would be a training/intern period in which the employer would/could provide training (many jobs have initial paid training, but these candidates would come at half the rate)



What classes?

-There are federal laws against discriminating for certain reasons, more specifically covered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class


Who opts out?

- The New York Times reports that even fast food chain Pollo Tropical requires people to be employed before considering them.

Normally, fast food outlets are the first place you'd think would be hiring the unemployed. But, the rising unemployment rate means that more and more people are trying to get any job.

COMPANIES DONT LIKE TO HIRE PEOPLE WHO WANT ANY JOB. THEY WANT TO HIRE PEOPLE WHO WANT THIS JOB.

One way of cutting through the applicants is to eliminate the any job candidates, and these are most likely to be the unemployed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unemployed-5-reasons-companies-wont-hire-you/


What Solution?

- See 'What Training'

In a way, you are correct. An employer wants to know that a job applicant is looking for long-term employment with that particular employer.

Again, so the taxpayer would get to pick up half the expenses of some undetermined business that would need to qualify as some favorite of some bureaucratic system to train people too lazy to train themselves. Would that not pretty much cover what this method would try and accomplish, socialism at its best, already corrupted? Wonder what it would cost in campaign contributions to get on that list for half priced employees and what opt outs we get to pay for to dump them when the period was over? I'm quite sure Microsoft would sign up for 5,000 to 10,000 slots., half priced monkeys. Monkey see, monkey do, times up, next.



Oh yes, a series of discrimination class which cannot be targeted for discrimination. Clear as mud. But what about those that aren't in one of those classes, isn't that discrimination?



It normally helps to be Hispanic and speak Spanish to work for Pollo Tropical but not a big problem currently as they are in South Florida. They used to be a really great place but then they got bought by Burger King and well... nuff said.

But what is your point? If I want a good employee, I steal them from my competitor. Who wants the dregs hanging out at the unemployment office? Now the good news with the current environment is there are some really good people out there for blue collar, not so true for white collar. And with the shafting they got, available for half their true worth in the old economy. What a shame, but them not nearly as bad as it will be.



That is not an answer but dodging the issue therefore I would assume, there is no answer, just rhetoric.

1.the taxpayer already picks up the expense in a system that isn't WORKING,,,,remember?

2.there is no one who is not in one of the protected classes, did you read the information?

3. my point is I tire of the old adage blaming those in need for not just 'getting a job',, when employers aren't just 'hiring an applicant',,, jobs and applicants have to match

and a policy that merely steals from other employers only increases the unemployment numbers , sustains them longer, and leads to potentially higher turnover for employers who no longer will be able to feel confident that their employees will stay on in their positions, turnover which costs the employers which would be better spent HIRING those who are out of work that may actually stay on


4. There was no issue really raised, there were questions asked. I answered those questions.

I would not object to the government forming a partnership with private companies to train people for jobs within those companies.

If the long-term benefits are greater than the short-term costs, then the tax $$$ spent would be $$$ well spent.

agreed.

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If the U.S. government can give out grants so that people can attend college, then why can't the U.S. government give out grants so that unemployed people can have on-the-job training in businesses that are hiring?

many don't want the government to 'give' anything because it comes form the 'taxpayers' who deserve to keep everything they earn and shouldn't have to be 'forced' to 'give' any of it for someone or something else

except, maybe, military?

not my opinion, but for sure the argument you will receive from others,,,


and don't get me started on the preamble and the use of vague words that can be interpreted a million ways,,



'common' defense , 'general welfare',,,etc,,,

people will have dozens of different ideas of what should be 'common' or 'general'

Wouldn't the act of the U.S. government paying for on-the-job training of unemployed people be a way of promoting the general welfare?

you and I think so

but many anti government folks will only see it as a problem because of the governments being involved at all,,

That is why I quoted the Preamble, to reveal what the stated job of the U.S. government is.