[PEN-L:11695] strike-breaking unemployment insurance

[Daniel Myers <dhm@xxxxxxxx>]

It may make little sense to picket UPS without sending a group of
picketers to picket in front of the Unemployment Insurance office.

Here's a tidbit I posted last year to the csf homeless group:


---
Subject: http://csf.Colorado.EDU/mail/homeless/feb96/

Re: Desperation, violence, rage

Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:20:38 -0800 (PST)
dhm (dhm@xxxxxxxxxxx)

(snip)

I don't see much hope for government programs when the needy clientele
have already been driven off entitlement rolls by corrupt employees and
inept programs. When a person is driven away, I think it is unlikely
he/she would want to return to the same political system that caused the
problems.

As far as inept programs are concerned, one needed reform is our
unemployment insurance system. Here lies the official ideology of "work".
This is also the program where major, corrupt abuses occur. I could
suggest, as if the program would ever do any good, that the rules be
changed to offer entitlements to people involved in labor disputes.

I think the despondent homeless (snip) are actually involved in a labor
dispute whenever employers treat them unfairly or fraudulently, when they
are made to feel obsolete in the workforce, and even when applying for
work. It's a matter of first amendment interpretation of what's going on
in the employment market. One party might call it a "layoff", another
party might call the same thing "a trade dispute". The ui caseworkers
might also contribute to the labor dispute by taking sides (under current
rules, the ui caseworker will cut off the insurance payment and thereby
take the side of the employer automatically). The participation of any
formal labor organization in the dispute should be deemed immaterial.

The offer of unemployment insurance should probably be extended to all
citizens, regardless of how long they've been out of paid work. Penalties
for part-time, temporary, and self employment, should be generally
eliminated when basically dependent upon ui benefits, and any form of
education or training while receiving benefits should not be penalized.

If unemployed people fail to apply for enough jobs which they know they
will be rejected (or eventually harassed out of) from because of
"structural" reasons or "structural" discrimination (including the
so-called "BFOQ's"  which are usually based on academic credentials and
licensing), they also shouldn't be penalized. Obstructionism by ui staff
should be severely punished.

Actually, after writing this, I looked over Califoria's UI code, and if
there are any civil libertarians out there in computer land, you might
agree that the whole code section about elegibility needs to be
re-written, and all existing ui employees and hearing officers should
probably be fired and not re-hired.

Copyright 1996 by D. Myers. All rights reserved. For personal use only.
also
http://www.catch22.com/~dhm