If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PennLive)   "Sorry ma'am, you can't get unemployment because you quit your job because you didn't want to drive 35 miles to work. Deal with it"   (pennlive.com) divider line 211
    More: Dumbass, senior judge, sufficient reason  
•       •       •

12273 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2014 at 6:44 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



211 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-03 04:53:52 PM

ferretman: Semantic Warrior: Captain Dan: Nobody is entitled to a job, much less a good job.  She should be grateful to even have a job opportunity, which millions of people don't.  Suck it up, pray for forbearance, and work hard enough to become indispensable.

/not trolling
//I've worked in worse conditions, for less money
///it eliminated any sense of middle-class entitlement I felt

That's not middle class though.  According to the people running this country during the last several years' campaigns, middle class is anyone making up to $200k or $250k a year (depending on who's talking)... yet the median working household income was $50k... meaning HALF of U.S. households make less than 20% of "middle class"...  at $11.48/hr, that's $23,878.40 a year, which is less than 12.5% of what people call middle class.  Oh, and to make $50k a year, you'd have to earn over $24/hr...

So what if you had a crappier job for less money than the person in the article? Neither of you was close to middle class by today's definition.  The idea that people making 6 figures a year are in the same economic class as those making $10/hr is the sort of asinine state of affairs that beg for revolution, not indifference.

Well when you have a President that has only expanded minimum wage jobs (~750K) what do you expect.


You think President is some kind of dictator? He only has a limited amount of power, and the legislators have been farking around with jobs for a long time. There have been no meaningful reforms, and the Reaganomics policies are coming to fruition, ie, the wealth is all at the top, the social contract is shattered, and the bought and paid for congress is so dysfunctional that the only thing that they can agree on is to pass laws to lower taxes, telling the poor Republicans that this time, with these tax cuts for the rich, there will finally be jobs. Unlike the last 100 times they've tried it.
 
2014-03-03 05:03:06 PM

Pitabred: Kensey: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Jim_Callahan: A transfer with a half-hour commute definitely falls under a reasonable attempt at accommodation by the employer as an alternative to just canning her.  I'd say it's plenty to void unemployment insurance, at least the UI the employer's funding.

In what universe is 35 miles a 30 minute commute? San Francisco is 7 miles across but it takes 45 minutes to get from the Sunset to the Embarcadero at 7:00 am.

Yeah, but this is rural-ish PA, not urban SF.  She probably would spend most of that commute at highway speed on US-422.

TsarTom: Bill Bryson once postulated it would take 14 hours for a stone-age adult (14-30 y/o) male to hunt up enough meat to feed his whole family... for A WEEK.
Taken together with the other young hunters, and divvied up amongst the community, 1 solid kill would garner enough leftovers to feed the widows/orphans/elderly/infirm.
The rest of the time (after building your hut or igloo or tree-fort) would be spent farking under the moonlight...

14 hours per week per person, yeah, that's about right for the Stone Age.  And if we all quit working more than 14 hours a week, that's what we'd go back to in a generation or two.  It takes work to keep civilization running.   You need a certain minimum population just to do enough work to maintain civilization, and as civilization gets more complex and interconnected that minimum population rises.

I would love to see where you get your sources for that assertion. Because the way things are going, we need less population to support more. Just look at how the population of farmers has shrunk over the years. Manufacturing. We're getting really good at making machines that do the work of lots of people, so we need fewer (but talented) people to keep everything running.


Somebody has to make the machines though, and something has to power them, and somebody has to keep them running.  Hypothetical Star Trek post-scarcity futures aside, let's take a tractor: it puts a bunch of farm laborers out of work, but it depends on an entire infrastructure of fuel supply, materials supply, manufacturing, distribution, mantenance... A farmer on his own these days is crippled without the products of the wider society as inputs to the things he uses, and that implies a bunch of people working to bring them into existence.

Yeah, you can have, say, robots do a lot of the machine-building, and nuclear power plants that nearly run themselves, but neither of those is completely self-sustaining yet, and there's more than just making the end product involved in both.
 
2014-03-03 05:08:42 PM

Ima4nic8or:   That said, if I had to commute 46 miles to work for only $11 and change per hour I would.  I am not a slug. I would rather work and contribute to the world than sit at home vegetating and collecting pity money that I didn't earn.


Spoken like a good German.
 
2014-03-03 05:09:09 PM

whatshisname: $11.48 an hour seems like awfully low pay for a teacher.


FTFA: "According to court filings, Keim worked for the Montgomery Early Learning Center for nearly five years as a full-time assistant teacher"

Assistant teacher != teacher.  Montgomery Early Learning Center != public school.  She is basically a babysitter at a preschool.  What do babysitters usually get paid?
 
2014-03-03 05:10:06 PM

Kensey: It may be worth noting that as a pro se litigant, she would have been well-advised to at least search Google Scholar; she would have found a wealth of case law telling her in pretty definite terms that she would lose.


Maybe she already knew she was going to lose, so what?

This thread is so "blame the victim" it's almost amusing the lengths people will justify what's basically tyranny.
 
2014-03-03 05:41:48 PM

whidbey: Kensey: It may be worth noting that as a pro se litigant, she would have been well-advised to at least search Google Scholar; she would have found a wealth of case law telling her in pretty definite terms that she would lose.

Maybe she already knew she was going to lose, so what?

This thread is so "blame the victim" it's almost amusing the lengths people will justify what's basically tyranny.


So if she knew she didn't have a case, don't waste everybody's time and taxpayer dollars just to make some quixotic stand against what you appear to think is tyranny, but in reality is called "dealing with a layoff/job move" by the rest of us.  And let's not forget the strong possibility I noted before, that even if she had prevailed, she still would have been paid little or nothing after accounting for her other income.

Unemployment compensation is not a right.  It is intended to temporarily remedy a specific situation: involuntary job separation not for cause, and priced accordingly.  If you want no-fault UI, get the law changed, don't carp about the existing law not providing a benefit it's explicitly not intended to.
 
2014-03-03 08:38:52 PM
I been offered jobs with 50 mile commutes and 30-40% pay rises and turned them down. I get offers for employment that are 5-10 minutes away that give me more than enough money to live comfortably on, fun work and I avoid sitting in a car for 4 hours a day. Frankly my time is too valuable to waste that way and I rather spend it with my family and having a worthwhile life.

I never have gotten American's willingness to do that since I've moved here.
 
2014-03-03 10:32:00 PM

majestic: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Ima4nic8or: whidbey: squirrelflavoredyogurt: If you've put up with worse, you're an idiot. Chances are I'm paying for some form of government aid for you because you're accepting a shiat job

You don't know what in the hell you are talking about.  I put up with a bit worse of a commute; 46 miles, but am not taking any government aid.  My salary is almost 5x the woman in the story.  That said, if I had to commute 46 miles to work for only $11 and change per hour I would.  I am not a slug. I would rather work and contribute to the world than sit at home vegetating and collecting pity money that I didn't earn.

You are pretty self righteous though aren't you?

A.) I'm betting you chose the commute and that your employer didn't just one day say, hey we moved your job 46 miles away.

B.) Employees and Employers  pay for unemployment insurance, suggesting that it's a hand out from the government shows me that you are either completely clueless about how it works or willfully ignorant and out to blame others for simply collecting on the insurance they paid into.

C.) I'm not sure what a "slug" is exactly, but if you've ever taken a payout from an auto or home insurance policy, they you are exactly as much of a "slug" as you're suggesting this woman is.

D.) Nothing in the article suggests that this woman wants to sit at home collecting a check for doing nothing, she wants to collect unemployment while she looks for another job. Suggesting that anyone who wants to collect on an insurance policy they paid into somehow makes them a lesser person than you shows me that you are a farking idiot who doesn't deserve any more of my time.

I'm going to post this one more time.... employees do not directly pay into UI via payroll deduction.


And...you are correct, it is just employers who pay. Thank you for correcting me.

I do stand by my suggestion that employers should not just be able to move your job, increase your commute time and cost, and then expect you to deal with it. This seems to me like the reason the insurance exists.
 
2014-03-03 11:21:43 PM

Kensey: Unemployment compensation is not a right.


The fark it isn't.

If you want no-fault UI, get the law changed, don't carp about the existing law not providing a benefit it's explicitly not intended to.

I actually feel a lot more righteous pointing out how many hardasses are in this thread, throwing the book at a woman who refused to go along with your bullshiat employers-call-all-the-shots ideology.

It looks like people need to crack some more heads to get others to take workers' rights seriously, I guess. When we discuss this, the default position tends to favor the multibillion dollar business world and fark the worker.
 
2014-03-04 12:12:49 AM

whidbey: I actually feel a lot more righteous pointing out how many hardasses are in this thread, throwing the book at a woman who refused to go along with your bullshiat employers-call-all-the-shots ideology.

It looks like people need to crack some more heads to get others to take workers' rights seriously, I guess. When we discuss this, the default position tends to favor the multibillion dollar business world and fark the worker.


Whatever gets you through the day, I guess.  Just so you know, I have collected unemployment -- because my shiatty boss at that job fired me for having a flat tire and not making it to work to do pizza delivery.  So I'm not unsympathetic to people who have been genuinely farked over by random happenstance, their employer, or the economy.  I'm not saying the employer calls all the shots, I'm saying the law does, and she never returned the serve after the first volley.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if this lady's employer had said "You're fired.  Pack your shiat."  Or if she quit because her boss came onto her and wouldn't take no for an answer.  Or the job moved 100 miles away instead of less than 50.  Or there was office politics involved and her firing was retaliation for something.  These are the things UI is there to protect you from -- not your job moving a little way down the road and you being a special snowflake about it.

And no, for those who think the extra gas expense would be such a killer, it really wouldn't.  Gas prices in that area are running about $3.60 a gallon right now.  If we assume a conservative mileage of 25 MPG, the extra 70 miles a day is about 3 gallons or a whole $10.80.  I'm gonna guess, though, she's not driving my 1997 Accord that got those mileage figures and is in something more like my current Civic getting 32 MPG, so the extra expense is around $8.00 a day.  Sure, it sucks to lose 45 minutes to an hour's pay in commuting costs.  That's why you make do while you look for another job closer to home if you really feel so put out by that commute that you just can't bear it.
 
2014-03-04 12:47:04 AM

Kensey: whidbey: I actually feel a lot more righteous pointing out how many hardasses are in this thread, throwing the book at a woman who refused to go along with your bullshiat employers-call-all-the-shots ideology.

It looks like people need to crack some more heads to get others to take workers' rights seriously, I guess. When we discuss this, the default position tends to favor the multibillion dollar business world and fark the worker.

Whatever gets you through the day, I guess.  Just so you know, I have collected unemployment -- because my shiatty boss at that job fired me for having a flat tire and not making it to work to do pizza delivery.  So I'm not unsympathetic to people who have been genuinely farked over by random happenstance, their employer, or the economy.  I'm not saying the employer calls all the shots, I'm saying the law does, and she never returned the serve after the first volley.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if this lady's employer had said "You're fired.  Pack your shiat."  Or if she quit because her boss came onto her and wouldn't take no for an answer.  Or the job moved 100 miles away instead of less than 50.  Or there was office politics involved and her firing was retaliation for something.  These are the things UI is there to protect you from -- not your job moving a little way down the road and you being a special snowflake about it.

And no, for those who think the extra gas expense would be such a killer, it really wouldn't.  Gas prices in that area are running about $3.60 a gallon right now.  If we assume a conservative mileage of 25 MPG, the extra 70 miles a day is about 3 gallons or a whole $10.80.  I'm gonna guess, though, she's not driving my 1997 Accord that got those mileage figures and is in something more like my current Civic getting 32 MPG, so the extra expense is around $8.00 a day.  Sure, it sucks to lose 45 minutes to an hour's pay in commuting costs.  That's why you make do while you look for another job closer to ...


Again, if you're so sympathetic, why are you defending the wrong side of the argument? And the gas thing is enough for me. I do not feel it is cost-effective to commute that far for a shiat-wage job. Neither should you.
 
Displayed 11 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report