Landscapers find workers choosing jobless pay

[Fieldmouse]

Why get a job when you're paid not to work? Read the full article, it gets even better.

In a state with the nation's highest jobless rate, landscaping companies are finding some job applicants are rejecting work offers so they can continue collecting unemployment benefits.
It is unclear whether this trend is affecting other seasonal industries. But the fact that some seasonal landscaping workers choose to stay home and collect a check from the state, rather than work outside for a full week and spend money for gas, taxes and other expenses, raises questions about whether extended unemployment benefits give the jobless an incentive to avoid work.
Members of the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association "have told me that they have a lot of people applying but that when they actually talk to them, it turns out that they're on unemployment and not looking for work," said Amy Frankmann, the group's executive director. "It is starting to make things difficult."

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100510/BIZ/5100335/Landscapers-find-workers-choosing-jobless-pay#ixzz0nin8mXNa

[ipscshooter]

Something similar happened at a printing company where my wife used to work. Bunch of folks got laid off (fortunately my wife wasn't one of them). About a month later, they got a big new contract and called all the employees back. But, they didn't want to come back because their unemployment benefits hadn't run out.

Every time an employer offers an unemployed person a job, they ought to report it to the unemployment office. If the person doesn't take the job, their bennies should be cut off.

[thndrchiken]

Originally Posted by ipscshooter

Every time an employer offers an unemployed person a job, they ought to report it to the unemployment office. If the person doesn't take the job, their bennies should be cut off.

I agree, but there should be some qualifiers there, I.E. will the income earned from the job cover related expenses and still be able to pay the bills and live?
My best friend's brother in law is the same way, got laid off and won't go back to work until all of the extensions have run out. He'd rather hunt and fish instead of supporting his family.

[ipscshooter]

Originally Posted by thndrchiken

I agree, but there should be some qualifiers there, I.E. will the income earned from the job cover related expenses and still be able to pay the bills and live?
My best friend's brother in law is the same way, got laid off and won't go back to work until all of the extensions have run out. He'd rather hunt and fish instead of supporting his family.

Shouldn't the question simply be whether the income is equal to or greater than the unemployment benefits plus the cost of getting to the jobsite?

[falcon]

Michigan must be pretty free with unemployment benefits. In many states if there is a job available in your occupation in the pay range of your last job you have to take the job.

Free money will always trump work in our freebie society.

[H80Hunter]

Originally Posted by falcon

Free money will always trump work in our freebie society.

This is easy to say, but if you get canned from your job you aren't going to want to landscape for less pay than you were making, and you aren't going to want to do it for pay equal to the unemployment benefits.

I suspect as always there are people gaming the system, but once again this is a more complicated issue then "cut employment, lazy people should get out there and work!"

[Fieldmouse]

Originally Posted by H80Hunter

This is easy to say, but if you get canned from your job you aren't going to want to landscape for less pay than you were making, and you aren't going to want to do it for pay equal to the unemployment benefits.

I suspect as always there are people gaming the system, but once again this is a more complicated issue then "cut employment, lazy people should get out there and work!"

Tell that to NJHunter. He went from IT to toilet technician.

Employment percentages always go up the last week of unemployment benies.

[Griswold]

Here's the problem: there is a certain level in this country where you're better off to be on the government dole than you are to be working. The number of Americans straddling that line isn't insignificant. With all the increases and extensions we've seen to unemployment benefits at the state and federal levels since this recession began, the number of Americans straddling that line has increased exponentially. As it now stands, if you're a worker making $27,000 before cuts, you're better off to be pink-slipped than to be working.

I'm seeing it every day with a lot of manufacturing workers. Their attitude is simple: "Add my food stamps and other benefits to my weekly unemployment pay, the discount on my house payment, etc., and I'm making as much or more than I'd be making if I went and worked my butt off on the line. Why should I?" Good question. Why should they?

Another factor to that is a lot of the unskilled folks who are being laid off are taking the opportunity to have their college education paid for. They see this as an opportunity to better themselves and get out of the cycle they've been in up to this point. If I had been working on an assembly line and was being paid to go to school while drawing enough in unemployment and associated benefits to maintain the lifestyle I was used to living, there's no way I would go back to work if I were offered a job.

This is the situation we've created.

[Fieldmouse]

This is the situation we've created.

No, it's the situation the left and independents have created.

[Griswold]

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse

No, it's the situation the left and independents have created.

Really? I don't recall too many "independent" votes in Congress to extend unemployment benefits.

I recall a number of Republican votes, however.