|
Mercnbeth -> RE: The Airline Security System Works; It Really Does! (12/29/2009 5:17:48 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
OK. It is that low pay and boring repetitive tasks attract only those desperate for work (ie not Brits). It is that low pay and boring repetitive tasks do not motivate anyone to do a job with great interest. It is that a lack of great interest and motivation to do the job well in this particular field is a security nightmare.
The problem ultimately is that we all want to fly for next to nothing and one of the few areas where costs can be cut is in staff for checking and sorting baggage. Indeed, the west shall eat itself.
E
When we were traveling in the UK we saw and chatted with a number of people from a variety of backgrounds. When the subject of the economy and employment came up one point was made that, to me, pointed to something that hasn't yet been discussed on the issue of low pay.
Some of the young people were saying that they can not work, not go to school, and still be given a stipend by the government. Granted, I don't think it was a large amount or even one many people contributing to this discussion would deem sufficient to live on; however pooling their money in groups and hanging out was a common practice. They made a good argument for not working.
They said that getting the stipend and not working, just hanging around drinking and whatever the under 25 year olds do on the streets during the day was much preferable to working at a job for what amounted to a very little difference in their personal bottom line. Working, you pay taxes - not working you get other people's taxes. Working, you save up for vacation time off, not an issue on the public dole.
Putting it in US terms getting $500 per month from the government and not working was preferable to earning $750 per month subject to a 'boss' and 'responsibilities'. Short term thinking at best; but could this be behind the fact that an immigrant would see the work and $750 preferable to any amount given as an entitlement?
What does an unemployed school drop out get as a stipend from the UK, how long does it last, and what, of any, requirements are placed upon them to seek employment? Also aren't there additional housing benefits given to the unemployed which would be lost if they took on a job? Sometimes the pragmatic decision to not work makes sense as a result of the good intending entitlement programs.
A similar thing occurs in the US where it's counter productive to find a job because most of the child assistance, housing, and health benefits get cut off or reduced the day you start working. Pragmatically it doesn't make much sense for a single mother to take on a minimum wage job in California. What they would lose in assistance is much more than can make; and that is before they factor in the additional cost of getting to their job. What little mass transit exists in California isn't convenient, reliable, or organized. I think some benefits remain, but not enough to incentive the individual. It would make more sense to allocate more in subsidiaries to those employed making employment desirable, but that 'good intent' projection consideration has never made it into the thought process.
I don't believe that most people unemployed are lazy. I think they are not as dumb as the government, who set up these counter-productive assistance programs, believes them to be.
|
|
|
|
