Congress and the media battle over the merits of H.R. 589 for 99ers

Please join us tomorrow to show them how wrong they are. We need jobs and until then we need help in the form of additional benefits. Let them know that if they spent some time working to create jobs not bashing 99er's maybe we wouldn't need this legislation. Maybe we would all be jobs holders, stimulating the economy thus creating the need for more jobs.

Get your voices heard

Congress and the media battle over the merits of H.R. 589 for 99ers - Rochester Unemployment | Examiner.com

Mike Thornton reporting

http://www.examiner.com/unemployment-in-rochester/congress-and-the-media-battle-over-the-merits-of-h-r-589-for-99ers

Great article. However, the same old story. Employers notice they can't attract enough candidates for their jobs. Missed opportunity for follow up questions as always.

Where is your company located? Easy commute, public transportation accessibility? Parking?
What is the position? How many applicants applied? How many applicants actually interviewed?
What are the necessary qualifications? How was the applicant match to the qualifications? Full time position/Part time position? Salary? Hourly? Are benefits available? Fully paid? Contributary? What are the hours?

Let's face it we've all been on the treadmill, take any interview regardless of pay etc. But when it actually costs you money in travel time, gas, additional child care, no benefits whether contributary or not, you as a potential employee have to way the pros and cons. At any other time an employer and an employee would do this. It has to be a good fit for both, why now is it questioned that we don't want to work? As individuals, we have to make concessions in everything we do, work hours, child care, caring for elderly parents, living where we can afford, driving what we can afford and so on. Are we now to believe, because of this job market, that we make decisions that may not be best for ourselves and our families because someone does an interview and says they don't get applicants for jobs and blame it on being able to collect unemployment. Not only is that an insulting generalization, it doesn't give us much credit for being capable of making sound decisions about our own lives. Again, I would be interested in seeing the questions being directed back at the potential employers, Who, What, Where, When and How Much?

During this recession, we've seen it many times, companies merger or move from "high rent" area to what they feel is a more managable area, then are completely shocked when their own employees don't or can't relocate and they are in an area, while good on the budget for rents, taxes, etc, does not have the "employee pool" they were hoping to choose from. In many cases, these employers then bash the unemployed, the education system for not turning out properly educated people, unmotivated workers, every excuse in the book except for what it really is. Companies are located in areas that require long commutes, salaries are generally not competitive, which is the real reason they moved there along with taxes, it is not a real economically driven area, therefore the employee pool has moved on and the types of jobs/salaries/benefits are not strong enough for people to relocate, make long commutes and disrupt their entire families' lives to accommodate a new job. Simply blaming unemployment benefits is an easy out.

Sorry for the rant, but we've all had these interviews where it just isn't possible to completely change your life for a job that doesn't pay well, after you have been unemployed for 2 plus years, and quite frankly, don't have the money to lay out for a move, longer commutes, changing schools, additional child care finding new Dr's, possibly leaving a sibling or parent who is sick or elderly and requires your care weekly. Much, much more goes into our thought process before accepting any job and it has to.