Screw Keeping this Job, I'm Getting Welfare!

[Lillfilly]

I'm not against people getting welfare who need it; in these cases, people are screwing-over my work site.

The temp agency that helps staff my site (with warehouse employees) has been working hard to get dozens of new people for the holidays. They're good, fair, safe jobs, over 9$ an hour, free drinks in the break room, etc. As Security, we will sign in dozens of interviewees, make them badges, enter them into the system, and give them safety training. They then get their work training with the temp person (she's very nice!), and then specific job training with their area lead. It takes over a week to get them trained (there's even a mock warehouse to practice in). They get shirts, safety gear, etc. All they need are to buy steel toed shoes.

Out of a dozen people, all but maybe 5 will walk-out on their first day, No call no show their first day, call and quit their first day, or are just never heard from again. Out of that 5, another 3 will quit a week or so in, mostly just by never showing up again. So as Security WE have to reverse everything we did to add them to the employee list, block badges, send notifications, etc. Then the poor temp staffer has to scramble to find current temps to fill-in the spots that the new people were supposed to fill until she can get new ones, which is hard because the temps can only work so much, and may not be trained in the location that needs to be filled. I should mention that of the seasonal temps, over half have a chance of becoming permanent afterwards, and other those another half have the chance of becoming full company employees (for a very GOOD company!. I know it happens, I've changed their status in the computer myself!) So it's not like this is a throw-away job they're applying for. Some people have worked for this company for 20 years.

AND THIS IS A CONSTANT CYCLE!!! Out of the 20 people hired last month, 14 have already been let go within their first week for the above reasons; another 3 are on their way out as we speak. And today several of these people that quit before their first day (after almost a week of paid training) came back to have the temp staffer sign paperwork from Welfare and outright BRAGGED how now they could get their benefits again because this proved that they'd 'tried.' and pretty much 'screw work!' And the temp staffer told us that, sadly, THIS is one of the main reasons that we've seen so many people quit after finishing their training; they'd rather just get welfare than having a job. So this poor woman, an her seasonal assistant, are just about pulling their hair out while being chewed out by stressed supervisors who are behind on work because they didn't get the X number of temps for their location that she was expected to provide. This poor woman must feel like an idiot day after day having to tell supervisors "sorry, the 3-people that I trained for your location quit." It's certainly not her, or the company she staffs for, fault. It's a good job, but you're expected to WORK, follow the rules and uphold the standards of the company. It's amazing how many people just can't handle that.

I'm worried she may lose her position as temp staffer, or that they may kick out the temp agency altogether, because they can't deliver the needed workers. Not to mention the amount of money being lost on shirts, safety gear, training and badges that are never returned.

[bainsidhe]

Could she, with proper notice at time of hire, state that any items not returned will be charged a fee and/or refuse to sign the welfare paperwork until items are returned? OK, refusing to sign the paperwork is me being petty, but shouldn't the company be able to deduct from training pay for company-owned goods that aren't returned? Check w/ the labor board first though, because IANAL.

I've seen similar things since the economic downturn. Where people can collect more earning unemployment than working entry-level positions. Not to mention, our city lost many middle-management and white-collar jobs, which used to earn a good wage. It's tough when the only jobs available earn 1/2 or 1/3 of one's prior income.

I'm very thankful for my current job.

[HYHYBT]

I don't know how it's done, but there has to be a way to filter applicants better than that.

Different business, no temp agency involved, etc., but we had that problem under my second store manager: he'd hire, say, five new people, and four of them plus at least one experienced person would be gone within a week. Eventually he gave up and threw the ideas both of hiring anybody and of keeping overtime under control out the window. I wasn't even full time then and still had some 50 hour weeks. The store ran well, but it was both expensive and exhausting. After about two months of this, he suddenly disappeared. His boss ran the store directly for a week or so before we got a new store manager, and they mostly hired people who stuck around.

[mjr]

Stories like this are one of the reasons we need "Welfare Reform".

Unemployment in the U.S. is only allowed under certain circumstances. If you quit a job, you don't get unemployment. And, in order for you to get unemployment, not only do you have to meet whatever the criteria is at the time, you have to document that you looked for work.

This whole thing about showing up just long enough for training, and then quitting, sounds to me a lot like "gaming the system".

There's got to be a better way to do it. Perhaps if it were something like you had to work for 3 consecutive months before you were "eligible" for it again or something, I don't know.

HYHYBT is right, though, there should be a better way to "weed out" the ones that are legitimately there for a job from the ones that aren't.

[fireheart17]

Going on the government's side, there really needs to be a way to address the above-mentioned behaviour.

Over here, you're subject to waiting periods between the claim process and when you can actually start receiving payments. The waiting period starts from when they process the claim (which can be as little as 2-3 days and as much as a week) and can be as small as 1 week and as long as 8 weeks. The period is extended if you pull crap like that mentioned above.
(This doesn't apply to all payments by the way, mostly the job-related ones)

[EricKei]

In the US -- You need to have worked at least a certain number of hours (whether it's "at that job" or "during that year", I am unsure) before you qualify -- but there may be exceptions if you can PROVE discrimination/ADA issues.

[NorthernZel]

In Denmark, if you quit yourself or are fired with just cause (for instance, poor performance, NCNS or similar) you get a "penalty period" of up to three weeks before you can get welfare.

On top of that you have to have worked for a certain period to be eligible for unemployment insurance.

[cindybubbles]

If you are able to work, but don't want to work, then you better have investments in the bank, a trust fund from your parents, or a filthy rich spouse. Don't go on welfare; you're stealing money from those who really need it, and there is a special place in hell for those who steal from the poor and needy.

[taxguykarl]

A family jewel: Anything that can be abused will be, sooner or later.
This seems especially the case for government programs.
I sure hope the temp agency finds a way to screen out the PA [public aid] ho's (as an ex-CW once described herself). That kind of turnover is crazy. Damn shame she'll be thrown under the bus.

[Gravekeeper]

Stories like this are one of the reasons we need "Welfare Reform".

No, really it isn't. The US Department of Labour keeps annual in-depth statistics on this. The actual rate of welfare abuse / fraud / improper payments in the US is only around 2.6% or so. From the outset 19% of that is late or inaccurate information provided by employers or third parties. So take that off the top.

Now, 24% of that is a failure to properly meet state work search requirements. So the global rate of the problem the op is complaining about is a mere 0.62%. Now let us conflate that with the fact that every state manages its own welfare system, requirements and standards. And that some are better than others at managing said information and standards. So the fraud rate of individual states varies wildly based on that state's standards and competence or incompetence at managing its own system. As well as local socioeconomic factors.

Nebraska for example has a fraud / abuse rate of a mere 0.18%. The lowest in the country. While Oregon, the worst in the country, has a more eyebrow raising rate of 6.83%. Thus the nebulous goal of "welfare reform" is completely pointless at a federal level.

As for the op's problem its a bit harder to pinpoint without knowing what state they are in ( but it sounds like it has pretty lax work search requirements if a week of training suffices ). But at least part of the problem lays with their company and hiring practices. As that is the common factor here. What is it about their current system that attracts those intent on welfare abuse? Its also incredibly unlikely that the turnover rate here is due entirely to an unending series of scam artists.

Is it a high turn over industry? Just a miserable job for the pay rate? Is the temp agency in question just shit with terrible screening practices? Is it the fact they are being hired as seasonal employees and thus are still looking for better / more stable work elsewhere? Sorry, but a 50% chance to keep your temp job and then another 50% to become a full employee and thus actually get benefits, etc, is not a good stable long term employment opportunity. Plus if that is the real annual rate then the company must have a significant turn over rate or a significant steady rate of expansion.

[TheHuckster]

No, really it isn't. The US Department of Labour keeps annual in-depth statistics on this. The actual rate of welfare abuse / fraud / improper payments in the US is only around 2.6% or so. From the outset 19% of that is late or inaccurate information provided by employers or third parties. So take that off the top.

That's the reported rate. The people in the OP aren't included in that rate because, clearly, they haven't been caught yet.

When I hear things like the OP, where there's a constant cycle of people walking out on their last day and then applying (successfully) for benefits, I find the statistics you just cited dubious.

[Ginger Tea]

If you are able to work, but don't want to work, then you better have investments in the bank, a trust fund from your parents, or a filthy rich spouse. Don't go on welfare; you're stealing money from those who really need it, and there is a special place in hell for those who steal from the poor and needy.

This is me right now, I was told I would have to have under a certain amount in the bank to claim UK unemployment benefits and my redundancy was more than that, I took a 'gap year' after my initial idea of going to Uni fell through and lived off my savings and redundancy, paid rent 3 months at a time, hell I could have just slammed down the whole years.

That year stretched over to a year and a half, but I'm still not inclined to look for work as now its seasonal only, the only thing I can say for sure is the gap doesn't look good on my CV, not that I've updated it in a decade, as instead of the traditional gap year things students do, this was me being semi retired for 18 or so months.

But my bank account is free of government financial aid, though in the new year once more long term jobs start showing up again, I will return to the rat race doing what ever comes my way.

[s_stabeler]

actually, that sounds about right- and the problem with Welfare Reform is it's used far too often as an excuse to make people virtually beg for benefits.- for example, an employee is fired. OK, seems an obvious one to exclude from getting benefits- but the problem is, too many managers like to keep their employees in constant fear for their jobs. Take away their ability to get benefits too, and those employees are now literally in fear of being out on the street if they step a foot wrong. ( no, I am not joking- these jobs are also usually low-paid enough that you are almost certainly paycheck-to-paycheck. It's an attitude of not caring about employees- so why pay more than the absolute minimum?)
As for employees who quit, what if they quit because the job was literally killing them, like with my mother? (to the extent that, apparently, had she still been employed, she would have won a case for what was basically Constructive Dismissal. Unfortunately, the case was thrown out because apparently, if they are successful in forcing you out, they get away with it- and mum frankly just wanted to put matters behind her, so didn't look to see if she could fight it.) deny them benefits, and you could have the same situation.

remember than benefits are there out of a recognition that sometimes, people need help to get past a tough spot- that's why they are time-limited. Try increasing efforts to catch fraudsters, rather than basically cutting benefits to people who may well need it most.

[Gravekeeper]

That's the reported rate. The people in the OP aren't included in that rate because, clearly, they haven't been caught yet.

When I hear things like the OP, where there's a constant cycle of people walking out on their last day and then applying (successfully) for benefits, I find the statistics you just cited dubious.

Sigh, really? ><

No offence, but putting your faith in a hyperbolic forum post on the internet as evidence of a nationwide problem. As opposed to the Department of Labour, whose very job it is to investigate, compile and report statistics on the issue then actively work with each State to improve it? That's a hell of a lot more dubious.

I mean, really, think about how silly that sounds. "I don't believe the people whose very job it is to investigate and report on this problem because I heard stories on the Internet.". Also, because you automatically assumed to know how the statistics worked instead of actually giving the experts on the issue any credence you've made your statement look even sillier.

It does not operate on "Reported rates". Its an active program of investigation using a system that has been in operation for decades. It's a quality control program where a statistical sample size of weekly payments are pulled at random from all States and audited by investigators from the moment of application. It's like the IRS but even more anal.

From there, when an error or fraud is detected, the entire process from application to approval and beyond is audited to determine why it happened and who is responsible. Everyone involved gets investigated. The applicant, the employer and the State agency it was handled by.

I mean do you really think a country as horrified by socialism as the US wouldn't have robust and long standing control measures in place? The entire idea of the welfare queen and all that bullshit that followed is a myth. You can thank Saint Reagan for it.

There is no such thing as unlimited welfare. There is a Federal maximum life time limit, a maximum consecutive limit and each State is allowed to set its own individual consecutive limit. There is also no such thing as free welfare. Welfare programs have a search for work component ( which was again mandated at the Federal level ). But again that component was put into the power of the States. Each State sets its requirements there and its up to each State to manage its programs effectively without fucking things up. A State can even completely eliminate the payments if it wants.

I mean, the US social safety net programs are pretty fubar in a lot of ways ( sexism, racism, a focus on "traditional" families, etc ) but fraud / abuse rates is really low on the list of legitimate problems it has.

[blas87]

I really hate to side with the democratic peeps on this one, but this isn't really about welfare abuse, in my opinion.

Over the years at my work, I saw a literal revolving door. I'm sure it'll be starting up again soon, since the ads are in the paper again, but for years, it was just hoardes of just lazy, stupid, worthless people. I doubt they just showed up for orientation to look good for public assistance. I honestly think they thought it'd be something different, or the company wasn't completely honest about everything (like mandatory overtime and other really not good things), or....like I said, they were just useless, stupid people we didn't need anyway. Some people see how much work is required or needed, and run.

A girlfriend of a coworker of mine has went through approximately 20some jobs since she did a maybe two week stint where we work. Anywhere from factory work to a call center to Target to gas stations. It's the people. Not trying to scam. They're just fucking worthless, unreliable, flakey, immature people.