Well, (A) and (C) might support your point, but in terms of (B): if employers don't generally become a lot more lax with respect to hiring people with criminal records, society is just going to keep turning them back towards crime.Originally Posted by Tapate50
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
AerchAngel (02-06-2014)
Make your own: it's cheaper and tastier than that neon-yellow garbage.
Last edited by jpx7; 02-06-2014 at 04:55 PM.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
zitothebrave (02-06-2014)
I made a maple porter brown mustard and it's awesome.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
You don't think there would be a liability issue with sending someone to service a home for something with a criminal record? Because you can't really do that.
It is very dangerous to do so as employees are an extension of you. The wrong hire could literally put you out of business or come durn close.
Keep in mind I'm referring to small businesses.
Ivermectin Man
Sturg, just so I know, is that what I asked you?
jpx7 (02-06-2014)
It certainly depends on the case—which is why I said "generally"—but I don't think a criminal record should automatically disqualify a person for a job position, especially if their individual incident/jail-time occurred some years in the past, and/or if they have, say, a decent record working a less-scrutinized job with no complaints from their manager/employer.
Also, on the topic of case-by-case: if the position is "truck driver," and the individual's responsibilities include literally driving a truck from point-a to point-b, it seems as far a liability is concerned "driving record" is a lot more salient than "criminal record," while in the case "exterminators" the "criminal record" would be a lot more salient than "driving record," as far as the sorts of liabilities you mention are concerned.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
Well.....of course.
How much of the gen pop at minimum wage don't meet those qualifications you think?
If I owned my own business I would not hire anyone with a criminal record. Why risk my livelihood to someone who has at one point shown they are capable of doing things not accepted by society. This is of course excluding foolish drug laws with weed.
Natural Immunity Croc
Then don't blame convicted criminals when they return to crime.
The lack of viable employment opportunities for people trying to escape the carceral cycle is a big reason for the recidivism we see.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
AerchAngel (02-06-2014), Julio3000 (02-07-2014), zitothebrave (02-06-2014)
I am unfortunately not qualified to speculate on that figure—but I'd say probably somewhere between more than I think and less than you think.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
You know, I appreciate that response. Since so often I ask very pointed questions and never get an answer, I'm going to play that game too - although, I'm not sure which question I didn't respond to.
Last edited by sturg33; 02-06-2014 at 06:42 PM.
They either sit at home, smoke weed, drugs and what not because they cannot get a job on our dime/or go back to prison.
So what is your suggestion. They have a right to have a good job and don't say they must work at minimum wage for the rest of their life.
A 20 year old cashed worthless checks from a Nigeria Scam Artist and gets 5 years and have a felony record. Should he be punished for life because of something he did at 20 and was too naive to get suckered?
Lol.
My viewpoint is coming from a small business owner who doesn't have adequate reserves/insurance/goodwill to survive from an incident. This is not inclusive of big business.
But, as a small business owner its not a risk worth taking.
Natural Immunity Croc
So I wanted to bring a debate to this topic again, because we hear it from the dem debate. Especially the Sanders camp.
What's your take on minimum wage? I know some here (sturg being the most common voice) are against any minimum wage. Some are for a much higher minimum wage.
I have one I think kind of meats in the middle. So the idea comes from an experience based minimum wage.
Start with a basic minimum wage. Say 8 bucks an hour. For every year you work your personal minimum wage goes up. There would have to be a yearly hour minimum set (say 800 hours which is about 15 hours per week) but as long as you hit that, your personal minimum wage goes up. So say you start work at 16 and you hit that every year until you're 22 and out of college. That means leaving college you'd have a minimum of 8 years boost over minimum wage. So say we increase your wage 20 cents per year you work, then your value is at a minimum of 9.60 an hour. Whne you're 50 and you've worked for 34 years, you'd be guaranteed to make at least 14.8 per hour. I say at least because the base could increase.
So what's the strengths and weaknesses to this system? Strength is that it values people with experience. Meaning you can't hire someone with 20 years of experience at a bargain because they happened to have just lost their job. TH edownside is it could eliminate the senior part time market for people like my dad who're retired but want to make just a little extra money with a part time job. Which is why I think waving it when you're over a certain age should be an option.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Your idea is better than the blanket idea of raising the wage arbitrarily for sure.
I would tweak it by requiring full-time work to get the credit for a year's experience. You could either require a certain minimum number of full-time weeks, or just set an hours limit that averaged 32 or more with some leeway for time off - voluntarily or otherwise. If someone is only working part-time then chances are they either aren't using that job as a primary means for supporting themselves or their families, or they aren't working as much as they should be. And your plan doesn't account for the fact that a lot of people don't do anything to add value to their labor in spite of working a long time. The extreme case would be someone who works just enough to get the pay raise for next year, but does so working for multiple employers and never improving his or her skill level.
The simplest and best solution is to set today's wage to a cost of living index, and increase it annually accordingly. Small business people like me who rely on low-wage workers could plan for a small increase every year. When you talk about increasing the wage by 40 to 100 percent in one year, that's the kind of thing that can grind small business in this country to a halt. If you're wanting to kill small business and give the Walmarts and other large corporations even more power and market share, a drastic minimum wage increase is the way to do it.
Another good idea would be to divide the country into zones based on cost of living, and have a different minimum wage for each zone. Here in Arkansas, as well as most of the rural south and midwest, you can get by on a near minimum wage if you're working full time and not wasting your money. It's not a life I'd choose, but it's possible. I don't see how anyone living in New York, California, or really any major city can afford to even subsist on less than $15 per hour.
Last edited by DirkPiggler; 12-20-2015 at 06:56 PM.
Well I have concerns with the hourly part. Because to me it's not a problem. I've worked fulltime for years. BUt know many of this country have seasonal work and seasonal unemployment. That would throw a wrench into that.
nd there are flaws to the system. There's flaws to every system. I've honestly never worked for minimum wage. Even my first job I got a quarter over minimum wage and healthy raises because they didn't want to lose me. Since then I've regularly made over 10 an hour if not way more than that. Only one job I've worked did I make less than that and I did that for experience and it was up here where the job market sucks.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Maybe require a certain number of full-time weeks worked in a year to get the credit. I agree that seasonal workers would skew the total hours requirement.
The people who are career part-time workers because they don't want to work full time are the ones I would want to prevent from getting the higher wage. If the lack of money isn't important enough in your life that it will cause you to work at least close to full time hours, then it isn't a big enough deal to require your employer to have to pay you more for the hours you do work.
That's a fair concern. It's one of many issues with any system.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote