Unemployment for construction workers.

[The Afoci]

Just for discussion that was in a different thread it didn't belong in.

Bucc, he didn't say he expected the cash. He said that he took it. Is there anyone who wouldn't take the money if it was there? I am not against reform in the system that would change how people receive unemployment, but wouldn't it be dumb not to take money that is available to him.

[The Afoci]

Pretty odd that I would find a topic off topic in a thread huh.

[Buccaneer]

Didn't say anything about Shovel, unlike others. I rail against abuses of the system and the expectation (and the political promises) to make it even more bigger, mismanaged and prone to abuse.

[wbonnell]

As long as one legitimately cannot find a job (and from what i understand there is a dearth of construction jobs in the north during the winter), I don't blame him for receiving unemployment. But if he's capable of working- even if the pay is no more than unemployment- he is morally obligated to work.

[clintl]

What abuse of the system? Presumably, Shovel's employer is paying the premiums for the unemployment insurance, and if they're in a business that has frequent and cyclical layoffs, I would guess they are pretty high - high enough to cover the benefits for Shovel and his fellow workers during the off-time. Essentially, it's another employer-paid benefit in cases like his, and I'm sure it's all factored into his employer's business costs.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by clintl
What abuse of the system? Presumably, Shovel's employer is paying the premiums for the unemployment insurance, and if they're in a business that has frequent and cyclical layoffs, I would guess they are pretty high - high enough to cover the benefits for Shovel and his fellow workers during the off-time. Essentially, it's another employer-paid benefit in cases like his, and I'm sure it's all factored into his employer's business costs.

Is that true? The employer pays 100% of the unemployment cost?

[Dutch]

Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. Hell, I don't have a problem with anybody being on welfare as long as they are providing their welfare officer proof that they are trying to get work while living the winter vacation good life.

[Draft Dodger]

honestly, I don't have a big problem with shovelmonkey doing this - if the system is set up that way, then it's more a fault of the system than the individual taking advantage of it.

this doesn't really apply to shovel, but darn if I'm not tired of companies repeatedly doing layoffs just to shave a bit off the bottom line to make the stock more attractive to investors. until that crap stops (not holding my breath), I'll tend to side with the people collecting unemployment.

[clintl]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Is that true? The employer pays 100% of the unemployment cost?

I don't think the system is structured quite that way. I think it's like any insurance fund, employers pay premiums based on their risk of having unemployment claims against them. In this case, though, where you have an industry with basically a 100% risk of large numbers of seasonally unemployed workers, that industry would have premiums high enough to cover them. It probably still makes sense to lay them off, though, rather than keeping them on the payrolls, because they save worker's comp premiums and payroll taxes, among other things.

At least that's how I believe the system works. It could vary from state to state.

[clintl]

Dola...

By the way, people should stop thinking of unemployment benefits as welfare. It's not. It's an insurance claim for which premiums have been paid for coverage, just like any other insurance claim. It just happens to be administered by the state.

[ShovelMonkey]

Enjoy your fucking "paid vacation" that the rest of the people in Pennsylvania are paying for. You are obviously physically able to work since you work on a paving crew. Yet rather than find a job and work for your money, you'd rather live off the public tit. Unemployment is intended for people like FranklinNoble who got laid off and need assistance making ends meet until they are able to find another job. Fucking mooch.

Generally I'm not taken with calling names, but in this case I think it's warranted.

So here goes, you silly chucklehead.

You mention that unemployment is intended for people like FN who get laid off and need assistance making ends meat? What do you call that fact that this is a yearly occurence for me? I get laid off the same as he does, and have no income for the winter months of the year? Explain to me how this is the same as being on welfare and being a "fucking mooch"?

Next time, dunderhead, before you launch a personal assault on someone how about taking a little time to think it through? And a little research wouldn't hurt as well.

I don't know the exact premium paid by my company but they do support the lions share of my winter unemployment compensation. I do know for a fact that construction companies pay a MUCH larger unemployment insurance premium than other companies.

Even if they didn't, I wouldn't label myself a mooch. I do work 75+ hours a week from April to December, and like the rest of you I have no way in hell of saving enough money during that time to live on for four months of no work.

Next time any of you want to call me a welfare scumbag I suggest you go out and try working on a paving crew for seven months out of the year. Even go watch one. If you still want to call me a mooch after that, go right ahead.

[Raiders Army]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
honestly, I don't have a big problem with shovelmonkey doing this - if the system is set up that way, then it's more a fault of the system than the individual taking advantage of it.

this doesn't really apply to shovel, but darn if I'm not tired of companies repeatedly doing layoffs just to shave a bit off the bottom line to make the stock more attractive to investors. until that crap stops (not holding my breath), I'll tend to side with the people collecting unemployment.

Not surprised that this is coming from someone named Draft Dodger. Not saying that the system isn't to blame, but to say that shovelmonkey is still ethically correct is a stretch.

[Raiders Army]

Originally posted by ShovelMonkey
You mention that unemployment is intended for people like FN who get laid off and need assistance making ends meat? What do you call that fact that this is a yearly occurence for me? I get laid off the same as he does, and have no income for the winter months of the year? Explain to me how this is the same as being on welfare and being a "fucking mooch"?

Even if they didn't, I wouldn't label myself a mooch. I do work 75+ hours a week from April to December, and like the rest of you I have no way in hell of saving enough money during that time to live on for four months of no work.

Next time any of you want to call me a welfare scumbag I suggest you go out and try working on a paving crew for seven months out of the year. Even go watch one. If you still want to call me a mooch after that, go right ahead.

Edited.

Just a few questions before I label you a mooch. If you get laid off every year and your work is so difficult and you have "no way in hell of saving enough money" then why don't you try to find a different job during your laid off time?

If you have no skills to work another job (which I might find hard to believe), then I applaud you working when you can, as opposed to living off welfare 100% of the time.

If you do have other skills, but are just too lazy to look for another job, because as you said in a previous post, you enjoy your winter vacation, then screw you and your lazy ass.

[clintl]

If ShovelMonkey is working 75 hours a week for 8 months, that's about 2625 hours a year. The average person probably puts in about 45 hours a week at most. That's only 2340 hours a year. I think it's pretty harsh to call him a slacker when he's working more in 8 months than most people are working in 12 months. The only one that "loses" by what ShovelMonkey is doing is his employer, and I would think that if the employers had a huge problem with it, they just wouldn't hire these people back. They obviously know who isn't working during the offseason.

[Raiders Army]

Originally posted by clintl
If ShovelMonkey is working 75 hours a week for 8 months, that's about 2625 hours a year. The average person probably puts in about 45 hours a week at most. That's only 2340 hours a year. I think it's pretty harsh to call him a slacker when he's working more in 8 months than most people are working in 12 months. The only one that "loses" by what ShovelMonkey is doing is his employer, and I would think that if the employers had a huge problem with it, they just wouldn't hire these people back. They obviously know who isn't working during the offseason.

If he is working more, then shouldn't he make enough money he doesn't need unemployment? Some things obviously don't make sense.

1. If he is barely making ends meet, then what is he getting paid? My sister in law worked the construction crews on the roads, and she was paid over $10/hour and that was in 1997 (this is in PA). If he's working so many "long hours" then what the hell is he doing with his money?

2. Again, if he doesn't like his job, and it's so tough, why not look for another job during his four-month break? He stated himself to look at it as a "paid vacation" which were the key words that started this whole thing.

3. "Next time any of you want to call me a welfare scumbag I suggest you go out and try working on a paving crew for seven months out of the year. Even go watch one. If you still want to call me a mooch after that, go right ahead." Okay. My sister-in-law held the sign that told people to stop and go. Pretty difficult stuff if you ask me. I feel no pity for anyone who whines about how they're struggling. Join the military and you won't worry about being laid off...just getting fired if you suck (maybe not even then).

Maybe if Shovelmonkey was a little more specific about his problems, I'll feel a little compassion. Until then, and until his cavalier attitude about "paid vacations" goes away, I won't give him benefit of the doubt.

[clintl]

If he were working 8 months of relatively normal hours, then I think you could make that case. However, after 8 months of 75 hours a week, I think 4 months off to recover is not that unreasonable. As was stated before, the taxpayers are not paying for this. His former employer is. And his employer has legal remedies to challenge the benefits if he's concerned about it.

[Bronxbombers]

Originally posted by The Afoci
Just for discussion that was in a different thread it didn't belong in.

Bucc, he didn't say he expected the cash. He said that he took it. Is there anyone who wouldn't take the money if it was there? I am not against reform in the system that would change how people receive unemployment, but wouldn't it be dumb not to take money that is available to him.

Yes, I wouldn't take it. Losers like him who DO take it only make it that much harder for legitimate unemployed workers to receive payments. Because of those like him, employers like myself are naturally suspicious and almost always fight anyone receiving benefits.

[Bronxbombers]

Originally posted by clintl
What abuse of the system? Presumably, Shovel's employer is paying the premiums for the unemployment insurance, and if they're in a business that has frequent and cyclical layoffs, I would guess they are pretty high - high enough to cover the benefits for Shovel and his fellow workers during the off-time. Essentially, it's another employer-paid benefit in cases like his, and I'm sure it's all factored into his employer's business costs.

Again, it is NOT a benefit. This is nothing he has paid money into. If you accept unemployment, you are morally and legally responsible to actively look for other employment, even if it is outside your normal job. If I knew his real name, I'd report him to the authorities and we'd see how much dancing he'd do then. This is a crime we are talking about.

[Bronxbombers]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Is that true? The employer pays 100% of the unemployment cost?

Yes, 100%!

[Bronxbombers]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
honestly, I don't have a big problem with shovelmonkey doing this - if the system is set up that way, then it's more a fault of the system than the individual taking advantage of it.

this doesn't really apply to shovel, but darn if I'm not tired of companies repeatedly doing layoffs just to shave a bit off the bottom line to make the stock more attractive to investors. until that crap stops (not holding my breath), I'll tend to side with the people collecting unemployment.

Pity, I'll tend to side with the legal side. You might sing a different tune if the money were coming out of your pocket like it does mine.

[Bronxbombers]

Originally posted by ShovelMonkey
Generally I'm not taken with calling names, but in this case I think it's warranted.

So here goes, you silly chucklehead.

You mention that unemployment is intended for people like FN who get laid off and need assistance making ends meat? What do you call that fact that this is a yearly occurence for me? I get laid off the same as he does, and have no income for the winter months of the year? Explain to me how this is the same as being on welfare and being a "fucking mooch"?

Next time, dunderhead, before you launch a personal assault on someone how about taking a little time to think it through? And a little research wouldn't hurt as well.

I don't know the exact premium paid by my company but they do support the lions share of my winter unemployment compensation. I do know for a fact that construction companies pay a MUCH larger unemployment insurance premium than other companies.

Even if they didn't, I wouldn't label myself a mooch. I do work 75+ hours a week from April to December, and like the rest of you I have no way in hell of saving enough money during that time to live on for four months of no work.

Next time any of you want to call me a welfare scumbag I suggest you go out and try working on a paving crew for seven months out of the year. Even go watch one. If you still want to call me a mooch after that, go right ahead.

First of all, you picked your occupation, not me.

Second, call your local DA's office and be sure to volunteer that you are on unemployment and purposfully NOT looking for a job. See if they don't send one of their uniformed representatives to have a chat with you on their expense. Don't want to do that? Big surprise...

Whether you can save money or not is not your employers problem. Stealing from them is, and that's what it is, pure theft. And contrary to popular opinion, this is a fund that the employer must maintain, NOT an insurance policy. Workman's Comp is an insurance policy.

Bottom line is you MUST get another job even if it is not in your chosen field. Otherwise it very much is welfare so again, welcome to the welfare crowd.

[Bronxbombers]

Originally posted by ShovelMonkey
Generally I'm not taken with calling names, but in this case I think it's warranted.


Even if they didn't, I wouldn't label myself a mooch. I do work 75+ hours a week from April to December, and like the rest of you I have no way in hell of saving enough money during that time to live on for four months of no work.

Personally, I couldn't care less if you worked 24 hours a day! Completely your choice. Again, this is an honesty issue. No doubt, if you could find a way to steal FOF2K4, you'd do it in a heartbeat. If you'll steal one thing, you'll certainly steal another. And you Sir, are a thief!

[clintl]

Originally posted by Bronxbombers
Again, it is NOT a benefit. This is nothing he has paid money into. If you accept unemployment, you are morally and legally responsible to actively look for other employment, even if it is outside your normal job. If I knew his real name, I'd report him to the authorities and we'd see how much dancing he'd do then. This is a crime we are talking about.

As far as being legally responsible to look for other employment, that is true in most cases. There are exceptions, though, at least in California (you can be eligible for unemployment while starting your own business, and you can be eligible and exemt from having to look for work if you're in a qualified training program).

And I sympathize with your position as an employer.

In Shovel's case, however, I think his employer is extremely abusive if he expects his employees to put in 75 hours a week on a sustained basis, and the guy probably needs a 4 month vacation just to recover from it. So while legally, Shovel may be on the wrong side, morally, the decent thing for his employer to do is to eat the costs and not whine about it.

FWIW, in my industry, it's somewhat common for employers to give workers they lay off 2-3 months of severance pay and benefits that far exceed the unemployment benefits even though they don't have to. And the employees are still eligible for unemployment right away. So I don't think all employers are as concerned or aggressive about fighting unemployment claims as you make them out to be.

[Raiders Army]

Note for ya, when you come back up, ShovelMonkey:

In this thread link you claim to have a $575 car payment.

In this thread link you claim to have a 2002 Chevy Silverado, and for some reason, went to Miami in December.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel too bad for you...because again, your stories aren't making any sense.

Oh and I found this one: link where you said the short fat Dixie Chick was hot; I seriously question your mental abilities (I missed this one, because I was in Iraq fighting when you posted)

[ShovelMonkey]

Clintl, thanks for your defense, it's good to see that someone has actually done their homework and isn't sucked into this welfare clownism.

RaidersArmy, my truck payment is $589 dollars a month and I traded in the '02 on a '03. I make $17 an hour when on state work, $13 when not. Everyone has bills wether that money be a mortgage or a truck payment. You tell me that you can save enough money during the year to pay for four months of no work and then maybe I'll understand your concern.

I find it laughable that you wasted enough time to dig through previous threads for disjointed quotes by me. I do think the short fat dixie chick is hot, and I did enjoy a winter trip to Miami, though I was WORKING for my Uncle on that trip and REPORTED my wages.

I thank you for fighting for me and my country in Iraq, but don't hold that over my head. And yes, I'm sure you'll come back with something cocky such as "I didn't fight for you, asshole, I fought for people who work all year round." Whatever. As stated before my employer pays for my winters. Not you. If you want to let that bother you then so be it.



Bronxbombers, What would be the point of seeking winter employment? I work periodically through the winter for my construction employer, and I'm guaranteed going back to work in the spring.

I don't give a rats ass that you as an employer have a problem with your employees claiming. My employer doesn't have this problem, and as long as he doesn't have a problem and he, NOT YOU, continues to pay for my winter unemployment, I will not share your pompous moral obligations.


Paving is rough, but it isn't that bad. I apologise to anyone who got the mistaken impression that I hated my job and wanted another.

[Bronxbombers]

Originally posted by ShovelMonkey
Clintl, thanks for your defense, it's good to see that someone has actually done their homework and isn't sucked into this welfare clownism.

RaidersArmy, my truck payment is $589 dollars a month and I traded in the '02 on a '03. I make $17 an hour when on state work, $13 when not. Everyone has bills wether that money be a mortgage or a truck payment. You tell me that you can save enough money during the year to pay for four months of no work and then maybe I'll understand your concern.

I find it laughable that you wasted enough time to dig through previous threads for disjointed quotes by me. I do think the short fat dixie chick is hot, and I did enjoy a winter trip to Miami, though I was WORKING for my Uncle on that trip and REPORTED my wages.

I thank you for fighting for me and my country in Iraq, but don't hold that over my head. And yes, I'm sure you'll come back with something cocky such as "I didn't fight for you, asshole, I fought for people who work all year round." Whatever. As stated before my employer pays for my winters. Not you. If you want to let that bother you then so be it.



Bronxbombers, What would be the point of seeking winter employment? I work periodically through the winter for my construction employer, and I'm guaranteed going back to work in the spring.

I don't give a rats ass that you as an employer have a problem with your employees claiming. My employer doesn't have this problem, and as long as he doesn't have a problem and he, NOT YOU, continues to pay for my winter unemployment, I will not share your pompous moral obligations.


Paving is rough, but it isn't that bad. I apologise to anyone who got the mistaken impression that I hated my job and wanted another.

And THAT will forever be the difference between you and myself. I would never consider a free handout while I had the ability to work. You, being the lazy dishonest asshole that you are, have no problems with it.

I want you to take a good look at your life. Your neighborhood, place you live, etc. It will never get any better for you. If you cheat at unemployment, you have already achieved your potential in life. What a shame.

But the challenge still remains. Let's get a conference call going (I'll even pay) and let's call the local DA's office and share your income plans with them. Wanna take me up on my offer?

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Bronxbombers
And THAT will forever be the difference between you and myself. I would never consider a free handout while I had the ability to work. You, being the lazy dishonest asshole that you are, have no problems with it.

I want you to take a good look at your life. Your neighborhood, place you live, etc. It will never get any better for you. If you cheat at unemployment, you have already achieved your potential in life. What a shame.

But the challenge still remains. Let's get a conference call going (I'll even pay) and let's call the local DA's office and share your income plans with them. Wanna take me up on my offer?

You are not even really reading what Shovel is saying, are you? His company does not WANT him to find another job. They are quite happy paying him a much lower amount than they normally do to have him come back when they do need him. My wife has done the same thing. Her employer asked her to go on unemployment for a few months while she was slow, but she definitely did not want her finding another job because then she would have train somebody to replace her when she got busy. This has nothing at all to do with the "scumbags" that you have to deal with. This is all normal in the construction field. It is the company's way to put employees "on vacation" until they are needed again, and I'm sure they are happy Shovel agrees to that.

[Raiders Army]

Originally posted by ShovelMonkey
RaidersArmy, my truck payment is $589 dollars a month and I traded in the '02 on a '03. I make $17 an hour when on state work, $13 when not. Everyone has bills wether that money be a mortgage or a truck payment. You tell me that you can save enough money during the year to pay for four months of no work and then maybe I'll understand your concern.

All I was saying is that I didn't understand your situation. I do now.

Originally posted by ShovelMonkey
I thank you for fighting for me and my country in Iraq, but don't hold that over my head. And yes, I'm sure you'll come back with something cocky such as "I didn't fight for you, asshole, I fought for people who work all year round." Whatever.

There are still people dying over there. I won't dignify this with a response.

Originally posted by ShovelMonkey
Paving is rough, but it isn't that bad. I apologise to anyone who got the mistaken impression that I hated my job and wanted another.

Apology accepted.

[Dutch]

This seems more like a case of the employer taking advantage of America's welfare system than the employee. I think employers should be taken to task on being responsable for their workers all year round.

I would be curious how teachers are handled in that regard. They do have a rather long vacation but I would imagine they aren't "let go" every summer.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Dutch
This seems more like a case of the employer taking advantage of America's welfare system than the employee. I think employers should be taken to task on being responsable for their workers all year round.

I would be curious how teachers are handled in that regard. They do have a rather long vacation but I would imagine they aren't "let go" every summer.

It is not welfare. It is funded entirely by employers. And if the employer is paying for his former workers, in what way is he taking advantage of the system? Answer - none whatsoever.

I am astonished that so many people on this board can't comprehend this. Apparently, erroneous assumptions about what the unemployment system is and does are extremely difficult to overcome, even after you have been given the facts.

To answer your question about teachers, in California at least, they are not eligible for unemployment during the vacation periods. This applies to other school employees as well.

[Dutch]

It is not welfare. It is funded entirely by employers. And if the employer is paying for his former workers, in what way is he taking advantage of the system? Answer - none whatsoever.

I am astonished that so many people on this board can't comprehend this. Apparently, erroneous assumptions about what the unemployment system is and does are extremely difficult to overcome, even after you have been given the facts.

I admit, it's difficult for me to comprehend. But I'm trying, that's why I'm asking questions now.

[MJ4H]

Originally posted by Dutch
This seems more like a case of the employer taking advantage of America's welfare system than the employee. I think employers should be taken to task on being responsable for their workers all year round.

I would be curious how teachers are handled in that regard. They do have a rather long vacation but I would imagine they aren't "let go" every summer.

Teachers, at least here, are given the option of yearly salary/12 given monthly all year or yearly salary/10 given while in school.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by clintl
It is not welfare. It is funded entirely by employers. And if the employer is paying for his former workers, in what way is he taking advantage of the system? Answer - none whatsoever.

The answer to this is that the employer is NOT paying for his former workers. The employer is paying into a fund which is used to make the unemployment payments. It is NOT a 1 to 1 ratio. If it was simply the employer setting aside money to pay for emploees it lets go, then I'd have no problem with it. Employers who have ZERO turnover for the year are still required to pay into the fund.

The problem I have is with people like SM who are able to work but CHOOSE not to. As a result the costs of the fund are higher than they normally would be and result in higher costs to the employers who pay money into the fund.

Also, there ARE states, such as New Jersey where the employee may pay unemployment insurance.

Also, I wan't to point out that this isn't meant as a personal attack on SM. It is meant as an attack on his choice to recieve unemployment payments when he doesn't need to. I don't know SM and he may volunteer at the homeless shelter during his "vacation". He could very well be an upstanding citizen in other regards. I just disagree with his choice in this matter.

[Buccaneer]

If the employer pays "all" of the benefits, why involve a government bureaucracy?

[clintl]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
If the employer pays "all" of the benefits, why involve a government bureaucracy?

Because employers wouldn't pay into the fund if they weren't required to. I suppose you could set up an alternative system in which employers could shop around with private insurers (like is done with disability insurance and worker's comp in some states), but the government would still be involved to make sure employers are fulfilling their legal obligations.

[Bronxbombers]

Originally posted by Dutch
This seems more like a case of the employer taking advantage of America's welfare system than the employee. I think employers should be taken to task on being responsable for their workers all year round.

I would be curious how teachers are handled in that regard. They do have a rather long vacation but I would imagine they aren't "let go" every summer.

Teachers have an annual salary. They choose to accept it in 12 monthly installments or 9 installments. My wife is a teacher/social worker. She picks the 9-month version and works as a Social Worker during the summer for the State.

[Bronxbombers]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
If the employer pays "all" of the benefits, why involve a government bureaucracy?

Because the government regulates and oversees it.

[ShovelMonkey]

Yes, I wouldn't take it. Losers like him who DO take it only make it that much harder for legitimate unemployed workers to receive payments. Because of those like him, employers like myself are naturally suspicious and almost always fight anyone receiving benefits.

I missed this before.

Employers like yourself are obviously idiots and thankfully rare. I make it much harder for legitimate unemployed workers to recieve payments? This is patently ridiculous. In PA, if you meet the qualifications, NO ONE is denied benefits. That is, of course, unless morons like yourself fight them when they try to collect.

Originally posted by Bronxbombers
And THAT will forever be the difference between you and myself. I would never consider a free handout while I had the ability to work. You, being the lazy dishonest asshole that you are, have no problems with it.

I want you to take a good look at your life. Your neighborhood, place you live, etc. It will never get any better for you. If you cheat at unemployment, you have already achieved your potential in life. What a shame.

But the challenge still remains. Let's get a conference call going (I'll even pay) and let's call the local DA's office and share your income plans with them. Wanna take me up on my offer?

You, sir, are an ingrate and and asshole. My potential in life is limitless. I've been employed at the same company for four years. I began there as a laboror the week after my highschool graduation. This seems desirable in comparison to the hordes of minimum wage students employed at burger joints.

My second year there I was moved up to screed operator. My third year I became the lead man of our crew.

This being my fourth year I'm still holding that position, and at the age of 22 I've been asked if I'd like my own crew next year. If I'd accept this offer I'd be the youngest foreman in company history. Our company is one of the largest paving outfits in PA and I'd be responsible for handling multi-million dollar jobs. This is at 22. Do I sound proud? Yes I do. If you think I'm already where I'll be for the rest of my life I suggest you check back with me in ten years when I'm running the company.

As for my neighborhood, I'm currently buying my own home in quiet mountain location in Central PA. If it never gets any better than that, so be it. It's a hell of a lot better than alot of people I know.

You call me lazy and dishonest? That your opinion. My opinion is that I, and other paving professionials everywhere, have worked damn hard to get where we are.

You want to bring the DA down on me? I don't need to give you my name. All you need to do is have them contact nearly all the northern members of paving crews in the United States. I think you'll find that they already know of the nearly universal practise of systematic winter construction layoffs. I also think they'll tell you to get the board out of your ass before they come down on you for blocking benefits to potentially deserving recipients.

With corporate greed tycoons such as yourself on the prowl, it's no wonder that some people do the things they do.

[Bronxbombers]

Originally posted by ShovelMonkey
I missed this before.

Employers like yourself are obviously idiots and thankfully rare. I make it much harder for legitimate unemployed workers to recieve payments? This is patently ridiculous. In PA, if you meet the qualifications, NO ONE is denied benefits. That is, of course, unless morons like yourself fight them when they try to collect.




You, sir, are an ingrate and and asshole. My potential in life is limitless. I've been employed at the same company for four years. I began there as a laboror the week after my highschool graduation. This seems desirable in comparison to the hordes of minimum wage students employed at burger joints.

My second year there I was moved up to screed operator. My third year I became the lead man of our crew.

This being my fourth year I'm still holding that position, and at the age of 22 I've been asked if I'd like my own crew next year. If I'd accept this offer I'd be the youngest foreman in company history. Our company is one of the largest paving outfits in PA and I'd be responsible for handling multi-million dollar jobs. This is at 22. Do I sound proud? Yes I do. If you think I'm already where I'll be for the rest of my life I suggest you check back with me in ten years when I'm running the company.

Run the company??? I doubt you'll be cleaning the bathrooms. Thieves rarely succeed except in learning better ways to steal.

As for my neighborhood, I'm currently buying my own home in quiet mountain location in Central PA. If it never gets any better than that, so be it. It's a hell of a lot better than alot of people I know.

I doubt this is true, but house bought with stolen money is no house I'd want to live in. But that's me. I'm not defending my integrity.


You call me lazy and dishonest? That your opinion. My opinion is that I, and other paving professionials everywhere, have worked damn hard to get where we are.

Yup, hard to get off that couch and go cash that unemployment check. Damned hard...


You want to bring the DA down on me? I don't need to give you my name. All you need to do is have them contact nearly all the northern members of paving crews in the United States. I think you'll find that they already know of the nearly universal practise of systematic winter construction layoffs. I also think they'll tell you to get the board out of your ass before they come down on you for blocking benefits to potentially deserving recipients.

Don't NEED to give your name or CAN'T give your name due to legal problems if you do? Big difference! And I doubt they will tell me to remove anything from my ass as they'll be too busy adding iron bracelets to your wrists. If you are so right, test out my theory if you have the balls! Somehow I doubt you do, actually I know you don't!


With corporate greed tycoons such as yourself on the prowl, it's no wonder that some people do the things they do.

And you Sir are nobody to talk about greed. I work quite hard for my money, have for over 24 years. If my employees go on unemployment, I expect them to look for other employment. That's the law. Why do we have laws like this? To protect us from lazy assholes like you. Believe me, if I knew your name, you wouldn't have a choice about the authorities checking you out. I'd gladly turn you in myself.

[ShovelMonkey]

How am I a thief? What have I stolen from you or anyone else? The only thing I'm guilty of is taking something offered to me by my company.

Cleaning bathrooms? Please. Now your just firing shots in the dark.

And as for being required to look for work? The only thing I'm required to to while drawing, is to be available for work offered by my native company. I'm sure your aware that benefits do run out after nine months, so it's not like anyone can live off of benefits permantly.

And no, I don't need to give you my name or contact info. I don't need the brand of foolish harrasmant that idiot zealots such as yourself bring. As I stated before, bring the whole ring of us down if you think you can. With such a common, widespread, and legitimate happening as construction layoffs I don't believe you'd get very far.

I pity you in a way. Twenty-four years of hard work? I have no doubt that your a hard worker. I had always heard, however, that with age comes wisdom. I guess you learn something new everyday.

Conversation over. Good day to you, sir.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by ShovelMonkey
Conversation over.

You got that right. Retreat to your corners.