Please define ¡§free¡¨. The classes require people to take some sort of transportation to the classes, as well as time out of a ¡§looking for work¡¨. It also requires (and the ones in my area weren¡¦t ¡§2 or 3 hours¡¨ but full on 8-5 classes, again, I specified that I didn¡¦t know how things ran in your neck of the woods, just from what I¡¦d been through).
At any rate a full day class would also require that the person spend money to get to and from the classes but figure out some way to have a lunch during the day (rather than fix food at home with food stamp ¡§appropriate¡¨ items).
And again, how many ¡§here¡¦s how to interview¡¨ or here¡¦s how to prepare to prepare to work¡¨ classes can a person go to? Out of a supposedly ¡§random draw¡¨ for these classes I was ending up in 5-10 similar classes per MONTH. (as were many of my fellow ex-students).
Well, One for example would be my case, or that of other fellow graduates. The caseworker HAS the resume of their ¡§client¡¨ right in front of them. The client (and I was by far not the only one this happened to) has a good work history behind them, if they need retraining regarding vocational or school, then teaching them things they already know, and have known for many years (I was 30) is useless for the client AND the system.
For those who are helped by ¡§here¡¦s how to interview/dress/learn about the workaday world¡¨ initially, this is wonderful if they then have the education or skills to back it up. But it¡¦s not enough. A person who knows how to interview but still has no job skills hasn¡¦t been helped.
,
Okay, but I¡¦m a bit confused (I might not have read carefully enough sorry ƒº), but I thought you were one who did work for the welfare department?
Canvas - I’ve worked for 25 years specializing w/offenders, the last 11 in employment services, ran a ‘work first’ program during that time as well (for folks on assistance), and for the past 11 years, have worked in conjunction w/other work first programs.
I maintain that even at one full day of ‘employability/interviewing’ stuff ‘taking away’ from job seeking, is not a significant issue. From all the years watching people job seek (including the other correction center days for the first 14 years), taking even one single whole day off from the job seek in order to train to do it better isn’t a hardship and did not negatively impact job seeking as a whole.
and as for ‘free’, you’re correct, transportation etc isn’t necessarily free (tho in their case was likely to be reimbursable), however in the ‘job seek’ programs the alternative was never ‘simply stay at home’, so there would be the same cost to the participant for job seeking for the day or going through that training for the day (maybe even less, given that they’d be in the same place all the time vs. having to go from place to place), and as a result, the greater majority would in fact be better equiped to job seek.
From a cost analysis point of view in terms of dealing w/ the numbers of people through these places, it makes more financial sense to simply have all participants go through that sort of training for the following reasons:
you’re able to document in their case file that they’ve had such training. This can be significant later on in cases where folks aren’t getting hired. and is necessary to build a case for those who deliberately sabatage the process (there weren’t many, but they did happen, and you needed to be able to prove that they were told, for example that ‘bringing your infant to the interview is not appropriate’ - no, I don’t think many people don’t know that, but in those rare cases where folks were deliberately trying to not get hired, you had to be able to document that you specifically trained them in this area).
The only safe method to determine that some one doesn’t really need this sort of training is through a direct assesment (ie have some one interview them). You cannot tell by looking at a resume (for example **all ** of those examples that I gave were folks who had degrees, significant work history including in the employment field and they still botched the interview, making classically stupid errors), and certainly not by self assesment (I’ve rarely had a client admit that they don’t interview well, and yet most of them don’t). The direct assesment is done individually. One on one time is the most expensive sort of service offered. And given the numbers involved - you’ve got 30 people each week - are you going to sit down and do 30 individual assessments (which kills of one person’s entire work load for that week) in order to discover that one person probably didn’t need that class, or are you going to have all 30 take the class and accept that for one out of the 30, it’s probably not necessary. I’ll tell you from a cost accounting POV, it’s no contest.
Remember - the unemployed job seeker’s time (given that the state is paying some one else for their professional services much more palatable to spend than the HR rep.
I’ve been employed since I was sixteen. I have more than one dime. Feel free to use mine… that’s why I put it into the system. Some people will spend it frivolously… many won’t. It stopped being my concern when I threw it into the hat, along with the dimes that buy my roads, fire protection, and schools for the kiddies, so’s they can find more profitable and pleasant diversions than mugging my old grey ass. Ken Starr helped himself to a few of my dimes, while he was trying to figure out whether some third party fibbed about a hummer. Never said thank’ee, neither.
Oddly enough for a dope-smokin’ shackin-up hippie, I’m minded of this:
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Could come in handy someday. Oh, and help yourself to a few extra dimes, while you’re at it. Mail them back to The Only American Taxpayers, if you please. Might cut off that whining sound in the background.
wring, you obviously have a long history and some really good information on teaching people to interview. I don’t see how what you and I have had to say is that terribly far apart though.
Plus, you’ve worked in a department that is for assisting offenders, is that in the same department as Welfare in your state?
I’m just stunned that 97% of the people don’t know the most basic things regarding how to interview, (well, perhaps not literally, I’m going by the number in your post where you say only 2 or 3 people out of 100 actually have a clue where it comes to interviewing etc).
Is this true? How in the world do people get to that stage of life, and have worked at other jobs and yet not know basic “how to in a job market” skills? What is the average age of these people? (I’d been working since I was 15 and didn’t end up in the system until I was 30, after I’d graduated from college).
Also, I do agree that if that’s a problem (the not knowing how to interview thing) it should be fixed, but my problem with it was within the Welfare system, not the correctional system (about which I cheerfully admit I know nothing).
But the problem that I was trying to address (other than my own gripes about what the system put me through) was that (at least from what was available in my state at the time I went through it) was that this is IT. That is ALL that is available to welfare recipients regarding “education” or “welfare to work” programs. That and training people for deadend jobs that actually leave them worse off than when they were on welfare.
In a previous post I said “perhaps that’s changed”. In later posts I addressed it directly. What the system needs is REAL education. The interview, or 'here’s how you act on the job" stuff is great…For AFTER the recipients have gotten an education that will allow them to get a living wage.
Is that in fact happening now? If not, it should!
Also, what kinds of questions do they ask in these “training to interview” interviews?
Gosh, I HOPE not the “where do you want to be in 5 years” or “tell me about your weaknesses” ones. I’ve been in a position where I have to interview and hire people to work at our company. The only thing I’m interested in is:
Do you have the training necessary?
What experience do you have?
All other interview questions deal with those two things.
The only other thing I pay attention to is: “What are you like to work with (meaning their personality, not the utterly lame standard “where do you see yourself in 5 years” list)”.
But we never ask that question outright, we just figure it out by just talking about projects we’ve been on and so forth, and let the person’s personality speak for itself. I’ve not had a bad egg yet.
I hope that interviewing has headed that direction. Has it?
I haven’t had to interview for a job for about 10 years. The closest I came to an interview was in 1995 when the project manager of the company I was applying to looked at my resume, asked me to type a letter and build a small spreadsheet and then asked me if I could start on Tuesday (I did, and never once typed a letter, but I did build spreadsheets :)).
Are “they” still doing the old “where do you see yourself in 5 years” stuff? (if so, I might have to retire early :D)
Many years ago, when I was unemployed back in Indiana, I went to the Employment and Training Services for job training. Never got any. There was a “decisions and goals” class, which wasted three days of good job training time, teaching us how to make decisions and set goals. Which I had already done. I had made the decision to seek job training with the goal of getting a good paying job.
Then there was the two weeks worth of teaching us how to interview for a job. Could have been taught in two days. Then they gave me a Pell Grant application. For a vo-tech school. Nine month course. My unemployment was going to run out in a month. I told the trainer, “I came here for job training, when does the job training start?” She told me that the vo-tech school was the job training. Huh? I’m going to be without an income in a month, and she’s telling me to go to school for nine more months… with no job and therefore no income with which to support myself while I’m going to vo-tech school in an accounting program when I basically was hoping for a course in basic bookkeeping so I could get a decent paying clerical job. When I pointed this out to them, I was basically brushed off.
There was a computer lab, but there was no actual classroom instruction in the software, so I basically printed out a ream of DOS commands that I didn’t understand and tinkered around in the tutorial program, but never really learned to use the software.
Then there were the classes- basic English and math. I was a high-school graduate, I had majored in English comp and lit, and they were trying to teach me junior high school grammer. WTF? Then there was the grade-school math class- I was already pretty good at math, that’s why I thought I would do well as a bookkeeper. Fortunately, one of the instructors was savvy enough to realize that I didn’t need this kind of “training” and gave me photocopied pages out of an accounting textbook and I basically taught myself.
BTW, this was in a fairly small community and there were no more than twenty people in my class. There was no attempt to assess the needs of each individual in the class and put them into an appropriate program. There was no basic skills training available through the program that would have enabled any of us to get more than a minimum wage job.
I agree with those who say that “work first” programs that teach interview and job search skills without training people in actual job skills leave the person in the program better off on welfare.
I’ve seen several 20/20 and other news article type shows where they gather and interview people who went through the various “work to welfare” programs.
All of the ones interviewed ended up WORSE off than when they were on welfare.
Minimum wage jobs (which in the news interview were the only type the recipients were trained for) don’t have health insurance, so all of the former recipients in this study were “going naked” after getting pushed off of the program. So, as in the case of one of the interviewees, she ended up RIGHT back on welfare after getting sick and being unable to work.
They were suddenly required to come up with the 300-500 dollar per month daycare bill (some states have daycare assistance, but it’s based upon income and in the states of the people they interviewed they dock you for anything above a couple hundred dollars a week, don’t know about other states) and many of them ended up in really bad areas because they no longer qualified for subsidized or partially subsidized housing.
So basically these people were now even FARTHER below the poverty line than they’d been before, but had no job skills (no real job skills, flipping burgers is great if you’re a teenager just starting out, but doesn’t cut it for a single parent), no way to pay to GET a better education, and now they weren’t even able to spend the time with their kids that they had before.
A good beginning would be to provide secondary or vocational (real vocational like computers, or heavy equipment, not some half assed thing) training. If we can spend more than $150,000 a year to send out all those little “free” safety and so on pamphlets from the government, and all kinds of other stupid wasteful crap our government deems “necessary,” then we should be able to have a division of the welfare department provide REAL education (meaning college, and degrees, or vocational certificates) and training to those who need it and can’t pay for it.
I still don’t see either the agency itself pushing for this, nor is the goverment getting a clue.
the simple reason you don’t see anyone pushing for that sort of thing is flat out the expense, as I noted.
Currently what may be available is something along the line of $3000 stipend type of thing for some very few folks to get training. Check around to see for yourself what level of training is available for that kind of money. T’aint much. multiply that by the 300 people that go through one of the 4 programs operating in my community alone, and you’ll see that for the tuition/training alone, the cost is prohibtively expensive for all but a few cases. You still have to add in the cost of the program costs to administer the funds, tract the results etc. adding up all of the costs, you get something like several thousands of (tax dollars) per client costs. vs. several hundred per client cost.
and, once again, I just think it’s ever so ducky that for the couple of people here that have taken those classes, they felt it wasn’t necessary. Doesn’t at all challenge my contention that in the economy of scale that these sorts of programs are operating on, the simple economics of it means that it makes more financial sense to have everybody go through the same ‘basic’ stuff, than to make any attempt to weed out the very few that don’t need any help at all or to discern the other chunk of folks who need 2 hours vs. 8, 6 hrs. vs 8 etc. etc etc. It costs (roughly) the same to run such a ‘class’ for 25 people as it does for 20 people, and saves the cost of individual assesements done on all participants ahead of time.
yes, Canvas lots of folks did a down right poor job of interviewing, applications etc. EVerything from poor spelling (misspelling the word “no” for example) to reasons for why they left last job (“Owner was cheating me out of time and money” for example) etc. and again, in all of the interviews I’ve personally conducted, (hundreds), there were only a few who did what I consider a “Good” job. I’ve looked over thousands and thousands of applications. There’s only been 2 or 3 over the years that I spotted that I couldn’t find some problem. I never had a problem weeding a stack of 60 resumes down to 5 to interview. I had more of a problem finding 5 to interview.
and again. I am NOT claiming that you personally suck at it. Simply that From my experience MOST people think they’ve got that covered and damn near all of them are wrong.
Yes, many places are still using the ‘tell me something good/bad’ or variation therein (it does help weed out certain issues), where do you see yourself in 5 years.
As an employer, hopefully when I’ve done the initial screening (apps/resumes) I’ve only included the folks who have the essential skills I’m looking for. I may ask for further info about that during the interview, but if I’m asking the basic “do you have the skills I’m looking for” in the interview, I’ve not done a good job of screening the apps in the first place. The face to face time is the most expensive, I only want to interview those few folks I’m pretty confident can do the job and probably will work out.
the interview is to try and get a handle on the ‘will they work out’ issue, not the ‘can they do the job’ issue.
, well then perhaps going after those “mere” $400 dollar per (that added up to what from the previous page? a bunch), and using that might be a start.
[quote]
and, once again, I just think it’s ever so ducky that for the couple of people here that have taken those classes, they felt it wasn’t necessary.
[quote]
We’ve already read, and believed you and said so that you know what you’re talking about when it comes to those that you’ve seen come through your programs needing the sorts of training you’ve described.
But you’re not answering the question of that does NOT then help them if they don’t have the secondary education (or at least vocational training with which to back it up). It’s like having kindling and logs all set up nice and neatly on the firepit, but no match. They STILL need real education.
Um, no one was saying “hey let’s spend the extra X amount of dollars to find the ones that don’t need it”, or whatever. Neither were we trying to “challenge” you. Since you are IN the system which we are discussing you’re in a position to be “in the know” regarding the questions we’re asking, and the problem which we are bringing up.
And we’re on to the related issue of real education. The two are not necessarily mutually exlusive. But you seem to be proving my point for me (seems, I haven’t seen you address my questions on education, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just haven’t gotten to it yet). And that point it, “it makes more financial sense”. Of COURSE it does to the gov’t. We’ve got these contractors in place who have cheap classes on “how to interview” etc. That’s a great END to what should be a real educational assist. The problem is that they aren’t then backing it up with what people need to bring TO the interview, their education and skills. They’re getting the cart before the horse.
Again, the interviewing classes are fine, but if they do not have an education, what jobs will they be able to apply for, REGARDLESS of how great their interview skill are. None of us are saying “stop the interviewing classes” don’t do it at all, we’re saying that what they’re doing isn’t WORKING.
I’m saying they are only the tail end. Necessary (especially if these folks are as bad as you say), but not ALL they need, not by a long shot. And currently, (again, I asked this but you didn’t answer) this is the BE ALL and END ALL of what is offered to recipients. It’s not even remotely close to being enough to get them out of poverty.
These are resumes that you are looking over so as to hire someone? Or as part of the training program teaching people to write resumes?
I didn’t say you were, I was just using myself as an example, I’m not sure what part of my post made you think this. My questions regarding how bad some people are was merely that, a question, out of curiosity. But I was really on to “we need to have real education” not JUST the interviewing.
You’ve got to be kidding me. Do you also provide consulting to the places that are hiring your ex-offenders? Do you have the opportunity to tell them that that’s an idiotic practice? I want to know who the person I’m interviewing REALLY is. I don’t want some pat practiced answer to a “psyche eval.” question a 3rd grader could have thought up.
Tell me, what would be the “correct” answer to that question, or one like it. If companies are really stupid enough to think that THEY are number one on their employees’ priority lists, then they’re smoking crack.
I have to disagree, a person can have a very impressive resume (and vice versa), sometimes face to face is the best way to see if they’re a good candidate getting more in depth into the sorts of projects they’ve done isn’t all that time consuming and you get a chance to get a feel for their personality during that process.
Why would it be expensive to interview someone? Is it a billable hours situation? In other words are you contracted to interview for agencies and companies and you get a rate per hour?
Also, I guess I still haven’t gleaned what it is that you do. I thought that you ran a training program for the gov’t for ex-offenders and teaching them how to interview and write resumes, do you also hire a lot of people for your company?
why is it expensive to interview someone??? are you joking? the largest cost center in many places is staff hours. In programs for welfare to work, it’s easily the largest cost. In a job setting, it may not be the largest cost item, but it’s certainly the one that will make or break the bottom line (materials etc. are necessary to make/ produce/ sell/ whatever, if your staff hours go off the chart, there goes your profit).
resumes I’ve seen include both folks applying and clients. and assorted others as well. According to folks I’ve talked to in hiring positions, we don’t generally read the whole resume carefully - you scan it for stuff of interest, look specifically for job skills you’re seeking, look for gaps, work history. As soon as you see something you don’t like, you stop reading and move to the next. again, it’s cost efficient, if you’re looking at 100 resumes, you don’t want to spend hours pouring over each one. Especially for entry level positions.
and I would hope that you’re not claiming either that:
alll people need post high school degrees or that
the governement should provide them. (which is exactly what you’re proposing to require by insisting that most/all need degrees/advanced training and these programs should provide them).
re: the “then go after those $400 cheaters” - you are joking, right?? look at what you’re claiming will help pay the costs:
A. “some” welfare recipients may indeed cheat the system, giving us that $400 figure.
B. “some” is a subset (ie lower number) than “all”.
C. “All” of the welfare participants are (generally) required to participate in these programs.
D. therefore, ‘go after’ those $400 cheaters (which will also cost money to do), and then you’d have the $$ available to pay for training (which I’d pointed out was in the thousands of dollars each just for tuition).
So, going after the few $400 cheaters would enable you to have the thousands available for ALL???
The solution? I don’t have a perfect one, but I absolutely reject the concept that what needs to be done is for the system to pay for advanced training/degrees for everyone on welfare.
Do people (generally) have an easier time getting a good job if they have more education/training? absolutely. Is it the government’s resposnibility to pay for all of it, in addition to their living expenses? Not in my opinion.
re: those questions - seriously - have you done interviewing? talked to recruiters? Human resource folks??? Hell when I interviewed w/the State years ago (about 10), they used many of those questions. They can be very effective if you know what to look for. not always, of course, but I’ve been able to screen out folks based on their responses to standard questions like that.
my job history: 14 years correction center, hiring/training/ interviewing staff included in job duties during that time. We had lots of turnover for part time folks, so ended up checking out lots of folks over the years.
Next 11 years, working w/ offenders helping them find jobs, interviewed, hired, trained other support staff there over the years, as well as interview training, application help for clients.
during those 11 years, we also ran a Work First program, another program specifically geared to youthful offenders etc.
yes, lots of staff for my agency (not so much any more). but have also conducted mock interview classes for folks in various categories, as well as reviewing folks ’ resumes.
during those 11 years, have attended conferences for human resource professionals, talked with managers wide varitey of places (industrial, commercial, restaurant, professional etc.), etc etc. work in conjunction w/a system that has 60 folks working with clients helping them find jobs.
OK, so it’s expensive and time consuming to interview everybody and find out who needs certain skills is expensive? OK, make the search skills class the two days it takes to teach someone how to write a resume and be effective in a job interview. Most folks could probably use some help in that area anyway.
But to spend six weeks in a useless basic English class I didn’t need? Ridiculous. It would probably take a good instructor a matter of a day to figure out that 2 or 3 people in the class didn’t need to be sitting there marking time. Also, too expensive to for the government to pay for vo-tech school? Compared to what? The tax revenues that would be collected from these people once they were gainfully employed? Or the cost of them ending up back on welfare because they couldn’t find a job that provided health insurance (much less pay the rent, utilities, buy groceries, pay for child care?)
Also, in the time I spent in a basic English class, I could have had a good, solid course in basic bookkeeping as well as an actual computer class, rather than the lab where I basically learned nothing because I didn’t have an instructor to help me. These skills could have probably netted me an $8-10/hr job, which was actually pretty decent money back in the early 1990’s in the smallish community where I lived- city of less than 200,000 population were rents were relatively low, along with employer-provided health insurance.
Thea did you answer the question “why is it the government’s responsability to pay for your advanced training/ education?” See, even if the person is receiving aid, IMHO, it is not the government’s responsability to offer all such persons paid training/education post high school.
I’ve not known of a ‘work first’ type program where the participants are in the sort of classes you’re describing for weeks except for those folks who have ESL issues (English as a Second Language).
I’ve specified that the types of programs I’m familiar w/ have some level of ‘classes’ interviewing, orientation, application stuff for a day or so. In my opinion, it makes more sense to have all folks take those couple of things, then embark on an organized job seek. To have them sitting around taking classes all day, day after day is absurd generally speaking.
Scenario followed around here is the 1st day orientation, next couple of days some level of assesments, trainings on job searches etc, after that, organized job searches, where the participant must be able to document job search activities for pretty much all day every day. Fields out those folks who had under the table jobs that weren’t reporting them 'cause they’re having to deal w/other stuff full time.
there’s work readiness assesment trainings for folks who’ve been involved in work seek for extended period of time (or who’ve gotten and been fired from several jobs ) and those who need to learn English. Those have them reporting daily to a work assignment (think stuff like community service) where their basic readiness to work anywhere is assessed.
Can’t imagine that what you described is cost effective means to get folks off welfare.
Actually, wring, I’m not really up for a debate on why it’s the government’s responsibility to pay for post secondary education, except that it is probably the most effective way of getting people who are on public aid off public aid and keeping them off permanently. Also, I think it’s extremely unfair to say that because someone is poor and doesn’t have the means to pay for an education, they should be condemned to live in grinding poverty because they don’t have the financial means to lift themselves out of it.
Also, my situation was through the Employment Security Division, and I went because my benefits were about to expire after months of fruitless job searching, but there were several welfare recipients in the program. All were primary English speakers, many, if not most were high-school dropouts, some actually did need the class, but probably at least a fourth of us didn’t.
Also, there is such a thing as standardized testing. Half an hour with a test booklet and answer sheet, plus maybe a couple of hours of grading the tests could have determined who and how many of us actually needed a class in basic English.
And really, in a matter of a few weeks of four-hour-a-day classes, most people in need of skills can learn basic software such as MS Office, which seems to be most in demand right now, or get some other basic job skills of the clerical variety. It doesn’t really require a degree to get a job that pays a living wage and provides benefits.
Forcing everyone to take the same classes (whether or not the classes are stupid) is a form of corporate welfare. It feeds money from the tax coffers to the organization that provides the classes. When these classes are required of people who do not need them, they are wasteful corporate welfare, and should be resisted as fiercefully (if not more so) than individuals on personal welfare wasting funds.
It is remotely possible that I could end up on public assistance (in the event that I lose my job and my unemployment runs out before I find work in my area of expertise – not that unlikely given that I’m a transsexual, and despite advances, we are still very much discriminated against). It would be offensive to force me to take classes to remedy my inability to find work in an environment that does not want to hire me regardless of my credentials. I am not sure what the content of those classes would be, or who would teach them. wring, does your organization offer classes in crossdressing? How about lying?
I don’t really care if a method of getting people off welfare is cost-effective or not. Making people self-sufficient is a worthy goal independent of its cost and should be pursued at any reasonable cost.
and there are other ways of obtaining education, should you wish to do so (student loans for example), without expecting the governement subsidize it.
You say you’re not up for the debate, but you’re continuing to assert that the only options are for the government to foot the bill to give everyone an advanced education/ training or condemn all those people to life in abject poverty. I disagree that those are the only alternatives, and in addition, I disagree that everyone needs additional education and training, and strongly disagree that it’s the government’s responsability to give it to everyone.
I’m not going to tell you what was right for your circumstances or that you were wrong and/or wronged. However, I am telling you the answer to the question posed up a ways “why don’t they (the government) pay for such training etc etc etc”.
I invite you to check out your local WorkForce INvestment Act programs and Work First programs to see how your tax dollars are being spent. The budgets for those things in my (relatively small, urban) area are several million. and that’s with a very limited amount of training such as you want to have available to many. I have no problem understanding why it isn’t offered more often.
You seem to be REalllY Reeeaaally defensive here. There’s no need for snottiness. No, I’m not kidding. I wasn’t asking IF it was expensive I was asking why it was expensive in YOUR experience. Did you read the whole question I asked you? Are you human resources? Is it an hourly billable rate as part of a contract? No, interviewing in my line of work isn’t a big cost, in any of the companies I’ve worked for, but then it’s only a part of my job. Not my whole job, which is why I asked for the stats for someone who DOES have your experience. You.
Okay, I asked this several times. You said you worked in a program that trained ex-offenders. In that job, if I am to understand your posts, you also interview people for real jobs and not just as part of their training, is this a true statement?
Is this your whole job? As that of resume scanner, interviewer? etc? Hence your expertise and my asking questions of you. Again, NOT because I’m challenging you or trying to “prove you wrong” or something. I’ve said this several times and you still seem to be taking this very defensively. You posted information which some us found interesting.
As a person who is also in the position to hire people, I’d like to know how person for whom that’s their whole job sees it.
I’m not “claiming” anything of the sort, I wish that you would calm down and stop being so defensive.
I’ve been very clear on what I mean by my statements. For those people WITHIN the programs the interview “betterment” and training programs are NOT enough. I’m not saying that they all need degrees, and for those that should get degrees that doesn’t mean an 8 year medical degree either.
I’m also not saying that all people need degrees. I don’t have one. Just a vocational cert and years and years of certs and experience in my chosen industry. Most of it I did on my own but I did get my start on a government program (NOT affiliated with the welfare department).
I’m not saying that the welfare department should necessarily provide the recipients with their training either. But during the time that they are ON welfare they shouldn’t be penalized for going to school to better themselves (again, policy in my state, don’t know what it is nationally).
Good grief!!! Of COURSE not. What part of “perhaps” and “Might be a START” didn’t you get.
Also, I didn’t name a figure, I referred you back to the poster on the previous page who DID post a link with a figure on the welfare cheats. It wasn’t a teensy sum. And as to “go after” the cheaters? Where are you getting your ideas that it would be that costly to cut them out of the system? The same caseworkers that are going over the paperwork and ensuring accuracy etc, could be either denying benefits for fraud, or turning it over to their supervisors. I wasn’t suggesting a Dragnet for welfare defrauders for pete sake!!!
Look, I am NOT “going after” you. I realize that you are only a worker in the system and are not responsible for the federal and state policies etc.
I absolutely did not suggest this. You assumed from me saying that they needed an education. There are other ways to assist people with getting an education than paying for the credits themselves.
I disagree. Other countries have subsidized secondary education. Our government wastes plenty of money on unnecessary items. It’s not a bad idea, it’s just not being done right now. Secondly, the government has made it it’s responsibility to feed, clothe house and pay medical ensurance for people. Why are you seeing something like education that actually CAN make decently paid productive citizens out of people as NOT okay to subsidize, but welfare is?
My point about the “interview programs” was fine, go ahead and have them. They’re there, they’ve been in place for decades. But don’t use the misnomer “Work to Welfare” for them. Don’t make the mistake that they are actually useful tools for getting these people a living wage. They are NOT enough to do what needs to be done for people on the system.
Asked and answered above on the first questions. Again, my questions were NOT challenges or disbelief in what you know, but specific questions. I was hoping for answers to them.
I never said “they need education and training AND THE GOV’T needs to pay for it”. You’re reading a lot into what I’m saying. Again, the point I was trying to make is that as much as the people who attend these classes might need assistance with interviewing skills THAT is not a good enough level of training with which to get them real work (a living wage) and if THAT is what they are calling “welfare to work” it’s a gross overexaggeration.
In saying that they needed education YOU were adding a silent " and the government should pay for all of the education for EVERYONE on the system," not me
Also, It’s hard to know to which posts, or questions within those posts you are replying since you aren’t using the “quote” function. If you are replying to a certain person, or a certain question within that person’s post, it helps them to know which statement of theirs you are replying to, or disagreeing with etc. Thanks.
