Retail Theft in Pennsylvania

[Cali408nia]

The ones who are looking for work are looking for a reason.

That is perhaps one of the most offensive statements I've seen on here.

Yeah you're right that's a blanket statement and it's not really fair to say that. But that's what I've experienced first hand. I'm trying to hire people to do a hard labor job that is part time and pays $10/hour. That's all I can offer and it's what I need. Obviously one can't support a family on that type of income. I would suspect that a fair amount of those who got laid off and are looking for work are folks who had well paying jobs in an industry which they have a degree for, and they aren't trying to "downgrade" and accept a job that typically low class people would be working. But, some work is better than no work and a job is a job. Some of the best workers I've hired were people that may be overqualified for the job I'm offering or they already have another job. Imagine that, people working 2 jobs when a bunch of people can't find 1. It's because those people who have good habits and ethics. IMO there are way too many people that are jobless but aren't willing to be honest, hardworking individuals. That says a lot. Beggars can't be choosers.

And for the record I check craigslist jobs a lot and I see Macy's advertise jobs every holiday season and I see Target advertising every couple of months.

 

[cbg]

You're still making blanket statements. There are plenty of people with professional degrees and backgrounds who would happily take on a lower paying job if they could get hired for one. You may be willing to hire an overqualified employee but most employers will not.

As for working two jobs "when some people can't find one", are you suggesting that jobs be rationed? I worked two jobs for a while and my husband still does because that what it takes to pay our bills. We've reduced our lifestyle (which never was all that outrageous) almost to the bone but prices have gone up and we have too much equity in the house to sell it now without a terrific financial loss. And I'm not talking about a McMansion; I'm talking about a small house that's almost too small for two people.

BTW, you are aware, are you not, that someone who accepts a much lower-paid position immediately after a layoff without at least trying to find a position equal to the one he left, will have done his unemployment benefits permanent harm if he gets laid off from that lower level position too? Maybe not right away, but sooner or later those quarters at the lesser salary will affect his benefit amount adversely.

So quit being so self-righteous and quit judging other people's decisions.

 

[mistoffolees]

You're still making blanket statements. There are plenty of people with professional degrees and backgrounds who would happily take on a lower paying job if they could get hired for one. You may be willing to hire an overqualified employee but most employers will not.

I was in exactly that position last year. No job, but vastly overqualified for the majority of the jobs available. I'd have been willing to take a much lower level position, but couldn't even get considered.

 

[cbg]

And I was in it about ten years ago, right after the dot-com crash.

That's why I know that Cali408nia is...well, I almost said something that would get me banned from the board, but you get the idea.

 

[Cali408nia]

You're still making blanket statements. There are plenty of people with professional degrees and backgrounds who would happily take on a lower paying job if they could get hired for one. You may be willing to hire an overqualified employee but most employers will not.

I guess anything I say is a blanket statement now huh Well I have no defense to that because whatever I say that doesn't reflect your personal experience is a blanket statement. I understand that many employers won't hire overqualified individuals and I think that's a shame. As long as the person is willing to work hard for the rate of pay that's being offered, I think that says a lot about the overqualified individual who needs a job and is willing to do whatever it is to obtain one. Overqualified individuals are usually very educated and hard working, that's a plus in any job field. Which is why I don't mind hiring them as long as they play my rules.

As for working two jobs "when some people can't find one", are you suggesting that jobs be rationed?

Umm ya no. My point was that those people who hold 2 jobs are people who are actively pursuing employment and must be people who are reliable and trustworthy. If there were plenty of people without jobs that were reliable and trustworthy people, I would think there would be jobs going to those who have none instead of people who already have one. That's not to say that a person who needs a 2nd job to get by doesn't need it just as bad as the person without one, each person has their own circumstances.

BTW, you are aware, are you not, that someone who accepts a much lower-paid position immediately after a layoff without at least trying to find a position equal to the one he left, will have done his unemployment benefits permanent harm if he gets laid off from that lower level position too? Maybe not right away, but sooner or later those quarters at the lesser salary will affect his benefit amount adversely.

Be careful there, do you know for a fact that unemployment works the same in all 50 states? Wouldn't want to make a blanket statement.

So quit being so self-righteous and quit judging other people's decisions.

Quite the opposite, actually. Being a common criminal I understand that people make mistakes and bad choices in life and it doesn't mean they can't be good workers. I try to judge potential employees on their characteristics and attitudes they present. Usually those criminals who haven't changed for the better will also express that in their actions and I wouldn't want to hire them anyways.

That's why I know that Cali408nia is...well, I almost said something that would get me banned from the board, but you get the idea.

Oh, how nice. I'm sorry that since my experience isn't what yours is, and I'm not part of the popular clique around here that my opinion isn't respected. I've never called you anything and I respect all the advice you give. The fact is that my experience might not be relevant to the job field or the area of the country which you live doesn't mean that it isn't real. I'm done with this discussion, have a Happy Holiday.

 

[cbg]

Well, I was about to say full of ****; do you like that better?

When you make across-the-board statements without making any qualifiers, then yes, that's a blanket statement. And when my experience doesn't meet your across-the-board statement, then I'm going to call you on it. And when you say that:

a fair amount of those who got laid off and are looking for work are folks who had well paying jobs in an industry which they have a degree for, and they aren't trying to "downgrade" and accept a job that typically low class people would be working.

and I know "a fair amount" of people who are willing to take any job they can get despite having a professional background and a degree, then yes, that's a blanket statement and it's wrong.

As for unemployment, do the math yourself. If someone has been making $50,000; gets laid off; immediately picks up a $10 an hour job; works at that job for a while and then gets laid off again, can you name me a state that will give him a benefit based on $50,000 instead of $10 an hour? If so, let me know what state it is and I'll move there.

Glad to hear you're done with the discussion - that means there won't be any more judgmental, offensive statements about unemployed workers.

 

[davew128]

As for unemployment, do the math yourself. If someone has been making $50,000; gets laid off; immediately picks up a $10 an hour job; works at that job for a while and then gets laid off again, can you name me a state that will give him a benefit based on $50,000 instead of $10 an hour? If so, let me know what state it is and I'll move there.

California. Because it's based on the last four full quarters of work on NEW claims. If you take a job after filing and then lose that job, your OLD claim is still in effect for up to a year from the original date of claim.

That said, I don't know that I would want to work a FT job at $10/hour and get about $100 in benefits as opposed to continuing to look at getting $450 in benefits.

 

[Cali408nia]

When you make across-the-board statements without making any qualifiers, then yes, that's a blanket statement. And when my experience doesn't meet your across-the-board statement, then I'm going to call you on it.

You seem to have a problem with the definition of a statement. When I say the words "I suspect" before expressing my opinion (which you cleverly ignored) that does not make it a statement of fact, and therefore cannot be a blanket statement.

Glad to hear you're done with the discussion - that means there won't be any more judgmental, offensive statements about unemployed workers.

Oooohh, judgmental? Like nobody on this forum gets judgmental when people post about how they made a mistake getting involved in drugs and they are judged as "scum". Yeah, judgments are totally wrong and don't exist. I've hired some rough people who were probably involved in a bad lifestyle previously and I've hired a school teacher that desperately needed work. I'm pretty sure that I judge people by their ability to do the job and work hard and that's what's important. I'm sorry that you find my statements offensive but you obviously have never posted a job ad on craigslist and seen the kind of potential job seekers that are out there. I'm pretty sure that I help unemployed people a great bit by hiring them, I'm not sure about you.

The whole point of my original post, in case you haven't been able to figure it out, had nothing to do with the entire population of unemployed people. It was that it's shocking to me that in this economy where a job should be worth a lot, there's still A LOT of people out there who expect a job to be handed to them. There always have been and probably always will be people with this mentality but it's hard for me to believe this because the way I value my job has changed a lot in the past years. And if you've ever tried conducting interviews with random people from Craigslist, you may find that OVER HALF of the people (at least where I live in my job field) in a sample of 20 or so have this mentality.

 

[cbg]

I thought you were done?

Because it's based on the last four full quarters of work on NEW claims. If you take a job after filing and then lose that job, your OLD claim is still in effect for up to a year from the original date of claim

Sure. It's like that in most if not all states. But we're not talking about someone who filed a claim based on their high quarters and THEN took another, lower paying job; we're talking (at least I'm talking) about someone who did what you seem to want them to do, and that's take the lower paying job immediately, without ever filing that first claim. So when he gets laid off from the lower paying job, there IS no old claim locked in with all the higher quarters; depending on how long he stayed with the new job, some or all of them are going to be based on the lower wage. Thus reducing his benefit.

As for the rest of it, you have no idea what I do or who I've hired. I don't disagree that there are people out there with an entitlement mentality - I've had plenty to say about that myself. But whether you intended it to or not, your post came across as saying that EVERYONE who was unemployed had that mentality, not to mention that they wouldn't be unemployed in the first place unless they were either incompetent or dishonest. So if you don't want people to take issue with your statements, be they blanket or otherwise, be a little more careful how you word them.

 

[Cali408nia]

I thought you were done?

We will be now since we've found a middle ground

Sure. It's like that in most if not all states. But we're not talking about someone who filed a claim based on their high quarters and THEN took another, lower paying job; we're talking (at least I'm talking) about someone who did what you seem to want them to do, and that's take the lower paying job immediately, without ever filing that first claim. So when he gets laid off from the lower paying job, there IS no old claim locked in with all the higher quarters; depending on how long he stayed with the new job, some or all of them are going to be based on the lower wage. Thus reducing his benefit.

1) I never actually said that somebody should take a lower paying job immediately after being laid off and before filing for unemployment. The unemployment system is in place for a reason. I was actually commenting in my original short rant about people that HAVE NO INCOME, as in, they are jobless and have no unemployment. People who should really really need a job but still expect it to be handed to them.
2) You are assuming that in this example that the person will get laid off from their new lower paying job.

As for the rest of it, you have no idea what I do or who I've hired. I don't disagree that there are people out there with an entitlement mentality - I've had plenty to say about that myself. But whether you intended it to or not, your post came across as saying that EVERYONE who was unemployed had that mentality, not to mention that they wouldn't be unemployed in the first place unless they were either incompetent or dishonest. So if you don't want people to take issue with your statements, be they blanket or otherwise, be a little more careful how you word them.

I'm glad you see where I was coming from. My original short post was not meant to be an essay. I'm sorry you took offense to it. My experience still is what it is. My experience deals more with younger people who won't have a professional background. You're sticking up for the professionals who have been laid off through no fault of their own, and I acknowledge there are many of those out there. I'm slamming the bums who have absolutely no job and income and should really need a job and yet don't act like it. The "bums" are the people who are more likely to be seeking retail store positions (going back to the original topic at hand) and that's where my comment came from about it not being as easy as it would seem to find a good employee to work at the retail level.

 

[stealth2]

You're still making blanket statements. There are plenty of people with professional degrees and backgrounds who would happily take on a lower paying job if they could get hired for one. You may be willing to hire an overqualified employee but most employers will not.

Yep - I got lucky. Laid off. Looked for a job for over a year with nothing working out. Went window shopping at the start of one holiday season, and on a whim walked into a store and asked if they were hiring. Walked out with a job, starting the next day. I've been there over 6 years. Oh, and I have a scientific-based degree from one of the top universities in the country. Go figure. Still and all - I support my kids with this job, and that is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[cbg]

Nothing in the least. Stealth, you know where I worked after I got laid off from an HR management job after the dot-com crash. If it's honest work and pays the bills, enough said.

 

[stealth2]

Exactly. I will say that I am always amused when I get Pineys looking down on me, 'cause I'm "the help". If only they knew! Hehehehehe

 

[cbg]

You are assuming that in this example that the person will get laid off from their new lower paying job.

It's my hypothetical and I can have anything happen in it that I want.