Monday, January 14, 2008

Will Pretend for Cash

A man entered my business this morning asking if I would sign a paper for him. He was pretty vague about what he wanted me to sign but I soon gathered it had something to do with looking for a job. Now this fellow never actually asked if I was hiring, nor did he present a resume to me, but he wanted me to sign his paper indicating that he was looking for a job. I signed the paper as I thought it would be the quickest way to get him to leave.

After he left I began to wonder what kind of perverse system was in place that encouraged a man to not really look for a job. I figured that he received some sort of financial assistance if he went through the motions of looking for a job. I figured the social service agency that dispensed with the money was operating under the same perverse system. Perhaps they have a contract that pays them per individual that they serve, or pretend to serve.

I asked around a bit and was told that some people are let out of the county jail in order to work, and that some are let out to look for work. So perhaps pretending to look for a job is preferable to a day in the county jail. I called my county supervisor to verify or refute this theory.

Unless I have overlooked something obvious, I suspect the average citizen is getting the shaft here. Either this man is getting cash or undeserved freedom at our expense. Why else would a man pretend to look for a job?

49 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Caledonication said...

What a coincidence, I walked into your store today as well. I didn't have anything for you to sign though.

I think that sometimes people on unemployment have prove they are looking for a job to continue to receive benefits.

Jesus Christ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

America's Rigged Economy
Aired: Monday, January 07, 2008

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/01/20080107_b_main.asp

New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter David Cay Johnston is mad as hell, and he doesn't want you to take it anymore. Last time out, the high-dudgeon Pulitzer Prize winner was up in arms about the American tax system.

This time he's on fire about the whole system. It's been rigged, he's shouting, for the rich. And not just a little, but a lot, sticking it big-time to the middle class.

Johnston's red-hot argument puts him right in the middle of the economic populism burning through Election '08, from Edwards to Huckabee.

This hour On Point: on the eve of New Hampshire, David Cay Johnston says yes, the system is rigged.

Guests
Spacer
· David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter for The New York Times, author of the best-selling book "Perfectly Legal." His new book is "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)"
· Karen Tumulty, national political correspondent for Time magazine

Anonymous said...

When I was a kid, I worked as a clerk in a family-owned drug store, where we'd also receive visitors from the unemployment office ostensibly "seeking" work.

The family came up with a novel approach - offer a job right off the bat, then invite the person into the back room to begin sorting merchandise and stocking shelves.

There were few, if any takers, and most walked away grumbling, without their form signed.

Jesus Christ said...

I took it upon myself to remove my response to deleted anon, as it was no longer relevant.

Preachrboy said...

Why didn't you just send him away without signing it?

Denis Navratil said...

In retrospect, I probably should have done exactly that Preachrboy. Why didn't I? I guess I figured the quickest, easiest thing to do would be to sign it so that he would leave.

Real Debate said...

In order to keep unemployment benefits rolling in you have show that you are looking for a job.

You got scammed.

I've said it a hundred times.

I have no issue helping those truly in need.

I have a huge issue helping those unwilling to help themselves.

Urban Pioneer said...

I was approached by the same gent on Monday, and my respose was the same, as yours. I told him I don't have employees, but I ultimatly signed it anyway. I used to get this all the time at the Mall. The people would be out hanging with their friends an shopping, and occasionally would ask it I was hiring, if I said no, the form came out, If I said Yes, and explained the qualifications, they would go away.
I was well aware of the scam, but didn't know a polite way to avoid signing.
From now on I will state that I will only sign if they can demonstrate that they have the skills to prove they could do the job, and I am therefore declining to hire them based upon not having experience in my field.

Denis, I could suggest to you: Ask first, do you know how to operate a POS cash register. Have they any experience in customer service, or wholesale purchasing, Display and merchandising, etc. It could be a teaching moment, it might not make much difference, but perhaps in the "mind" of the Job pursuer, a light bulb could go off now and again. Especially if you have a chance to do it in front of your staff or even subtly in front of a customer. They could recognize your attention to, and appreciation for, the skills they needed or have learned working for you.

These people are not really looking for a job, the are trying to fill out a piece of paper as fast as possible, so they can get the next check.
Please don't delete me......:^).

Conscious Thought said...

enabling them by signing the document is also counter-productive. Standing on principles is a lost ability nowadays.

Did i make it past the Deletion Czar?

Kimik said...

I also had this young man come into my store as well. I did not sign the paper as he didn't as if I were hiring. He just asked if I would sign this paper. I told him no I wouldn't sign. He just looked at me dumb & left. I don't have to sign this do I?

Denis Navratil said...

Well ctw, your post is amusing so I will let it slide. Yes, I can be fairly criticized for not standing on principle and yes you can pile on if you like. But being lectured by a liberal about enabling freeloaders is just plain funny and I will leave your comment as is to amuse my readers.

Conscious Thought said...

Denis, well since i enable conservative freeloaders too, i guess we're even. Curse those damn facade grant programs, and matching business grants!

Denis Navratil said...

Well we agree on that one ctw.

Greg Helding said...

conscious thought-

The facade grant programs are matching grants. They also cost up front money for design services before you get the matching funds. In the end, they help businesses grow and support more jobs. Hardly "freeloading".

Perhaps if welfare programs required an upfront investment and a 50% match from the recipient (as well as a maximum grant amount), evil conservatives would be more likely to support them.

Denis, the next time this guy comes in - call his bluff and hire him.


For the perpetually offended who may be reading:

1) "evil conservative" is a joke

2) Of course, I realize some people work hard, do everything they can, and still need some help to get going. I am all for programs that help those folks. In fact, I voted to fund a program that provides matching funds for women who meet goals, improve themselves, and get employment. The program actually aims at changing lives permanently and giving women the tools they need to grow and thrive - instead of giving them base level subsistence with no real expectations of participation on their part.

I believe it is a moral imperative that we help people in need. It is the nature of the help that is at issue. Do the programs actually help, or do they hurt. The one I described helps long term. The one this gentlemen was participating in appears to him in the long run as it rewards fraudulent behavior with money.

I would happily pay a few more bucks on my county tax bill if I knew the money was going to fund fraud /abuse prevention people for our human services/workforce development departments.

Greg Helding said...

Oops - the program "...appears to HARM him in the long run..."

Conscious Thought said...

Mr. Helding, installing newly painted plywood with cute decorations on an old building is not exactly my definition of job creation as you think it is.

You mentioned the job seeker is engaging in fraudulent activity, that most likely is true, but then i ask, are the people, like business owners, who willingly sign these documents to assist in the alledged fraudulant behavior, engaging in fraud as well?

Are they enabling the fraud?

Do you think the enablers have some responsibility in addition to the fraudulant job seekers themselves?

Pariah Jeep said...

Alderman Helding - please review my comments under "Development Idea". Thanks -

Urban Pioneer said...

Imagine if we had no minimum wage, or unemployment insurance obligation's. I could offer him $1.00 per hour, and see if he was worth it. If he was worth it I would immediately increase his wage to be competitive so that Kimi, Katie, or Denis, wouldn't steel him from me. Or perhaps each of us could use him 10 hours per week, and we could all pay whatever it was worth to us. But at this point some of us would have to get Unemployment insurance, and bureaucrats would require they be filed on such and such a day. If I pay him cash to do the job I need done, he's still going to appear "unemployed" and he is surely NOT going to declare that income, so the fraud continues. In fact a lot of Unemployed people are working for cash in all sorts of fields. and still picking up those Un'e cheques.

Kimik said...

Now I've just taken a phoen call from someone who wanted to know if we were hiring. We are not and that is what I told him. The next question was can I come in and fill out an application. I told him no, it is just myself & husband, we are not employeing at this time, I have no applications. Then he stated he was also doing a work search & could he have my name for the work search. I told him no, he could not & hung up the phone.

I just don't understand. So often I see these people claiming to be looking for employement & it is so obvious that they are NOT looking for work. It is just frustrating dealing with people who just want their piece of paper signed.

Denis Navratil said...

CTW, please share with me and other readers the appropriate punishment for me for having signed the paper. Thanks.

Greg Helding said...

CT-

The facade grants make stores in our commercial corridors look nice. This helps retail and can help create or maintain jobs. It will not create lots of jobs nor will it create 500 manufacturing jobs. There are a lot of aspects to local economic development. The facade grant program is just one of them.

PJ - I did read your comments and chose not to respond in this forum. I would be happy to talk to you about it anytime. I am at city hall for meetings on 1st and 3rd Mondays at 5:00 and 2nd and 4th Tuesdays at 7:00, as well as 1st and 3rd Wednesdays at 4:15. Feel free to e-mail or call if you like, my contact information is easy to get from the city web page.

Pariah Jeep said...

Alderman Helding - thanks - I would enjoy talking to you about this. Most (almost all) elected officials pretend to listen at best. You are different -

Pariah Jeep said...

I forgot to mention - if you're ever getting thrown out of a bar and don't really want to leave immediately, ask for a job application - the law says they have to give you one . . .

Caledonication said...

the law says they have to give you one . . .


Even if they are not hiring, they have to give you an application?

Pariah Jeep said...

I was told years ago that an employer has to give you an application if you request one. I don't think there is any requirement for them to keep it on file or even consider it but my understanding is that they have to at least accept it.

jas said...

well, there are some people like this fellow who arent really looking... and there are a LOT of people out there that really are.

please dont let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch in regards to your views on people that have to sign these unemployment papers.

NOBODY can make it for long on unemployment, and it doesnt last forever.

Conscious Thought said...

Well I thought our elected official in the conversation would elaborate on whether or not he thinks business owners encourage and enable fraudulant activities by signing these documents.

Issue avoidance, 1, real answers, 0.

Caledonication said...

Well I thought our elected official in the conversation would elaborate on whether or not he thinks business owners encourage and enable fraudulant activities by signing these documents.

Issue avoidance, 1, real answers, 0.
*


"Issue avoidance" and "not taking the bait" are two entirely different things. Alderman Helding was kind enough to answer several questions on someone’s personal blog. I'm sure he has better things to do than hang around merely to entertain you. He also indicated when and where he is available to discuss issues openly.

If your question had any relevance to solving an issue, it may have been acknowledged. Would you say, based on your own comments, that you were more concerned about educating business owners as to the proper procedures when approached by an individual with this document (resolving an issue) or how to vilify Denis (unresolved issues on your part)? Let's see, which words did you choose to describe business owners, who may have signed the document believing that they may have been required to do so?

"Assist in alledged fraudulant behavior" *
"Engaging in fraud"
"Enabling the fraud"
"Encourage and enable fraudulant activities" *

By your description you are insinuating that if a business owner signs this document, which the holder must have received from a department of the state of Wisconsin, then the business owner must therefore be attempting to defraud the state of monies.

* It is quite humorous how often you throw around a word that you can’t even spell.

Unresolved personal issues: 1
Real questions: 0

Conscious Thought said...

Caledonication, i highly doubt any of these jobseekers walked up to the shop owner with guns drawn to their foreheads and forcibly required them to sign. If you suspect fraud, as Denis self-admittedly did, don't partake or assist. Its as simple as that. No excuse you can conjure up will validate aiding a potentially fraudulent transaction, which can ultimately lead to the fleecing of taxpayer dough.

I'm sure Alderman Helding is mature enough to speak on his own behalf and doesn't need an un-official spokesperson from Caledonia.

The reality that you are deliberately avoiding, Caledonication, is that signing of these documents is actually a piece of the equation that eventually equals fraudulant use of taxpayer money.

Now ask yourself, what if business owners didn't sign these documents, do you think, from a macro viewpoint, their maybe a few less fraudulent unemployment claims?

Denis Navratil said...

Fine CTW, I still think you should tell us what my punishment should be for signing the document. Please do share, or are you avoiding the issue?

Caledonication said...

Caledonication, i highly doubt any of these jobseekers walked up to the shop owner with guns drawn to their foreheads and forcibly required them to sign. If you suspect fraud, as Denis self-admittedly did, don't partake or assist. Its as simple as that. No excuse you can conjure up will validate aiding a potentially fraudulent transaction, which can ultimately lead to the fleecing of taxpayer dough.

Here we go again. Let's put words into other people's mouths now, shall we? Change things around to fit into the little point you are so poorly trying to make. One minute we are talking about a business owner, who is unfamiliar with the protcol for signing some documents and the next thing coming out of your pie-hole is, "Well, no one held a gun to his head, so he is guilty of defrauding the state". It has not even been established which document we are even talking about, specifically. Please CT, please try to read and comprehend what other posters are putting in their comments. If you read the original post, you would clearly see that Denis did not suspect anything in particular until "after" the individual left. "After" reflecting upon the incident, Denis suspected something perverse may be taking place, at that time he sought the advice from others.

I'm sure Alderman Helding is mature enough to speak on his own behalf and doesn't need an un-official spokesperson from Caledonia.

Hmm, then what makes you think he needs you to be his spokesperson? Once again, pretty pointless comment you make here CT. I was not speaking on Alderman Helding's behalf. I was making a comment on my own behalf, based on my own observations, regarding a logical deduction. Something you apparently were unable to do for yourself. I wasn't trying to help him. I was trying to educate you. A futile exercise when dealing with someone having your mindset.

The reality that you are deliberately avoiding, Caledonication, is that signing of these documents is actually a piece of the equation that eventually equals fraudulant use of taxpayer money.

Still can't spell it I see. CT, I haven't avoided anything. You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that I am not trying to defend Denis, Alderman Helding or anybody else. I never said that signing the paper was the right or wrong thing to do. Pretty much any process can be reduced to an equation. So if you are going to use that argument then you need to consider all the "pieces" of the equation. Including the "system" of departments, offices and agents, that is in use to establish who gets unemployment benefits. I assume, by your logic, that if the "system" isn't perect, then all of the government employees involved are guilty of defrauding the state.

Now ask yourself, what if business owners didn't sign these documents, do you think, from a macro viewpoint, their maybe a few less fraudulent unemployment claims?

Unbelieveable CT. You try so hard to be right with your microview of this subject, then you try to get me to agree with your nonsense by making a broad statement like that and asking me to agree with it? Here, maybe this will salve your inner child. You ask, "What if business owners didn't sign these documents, do you think, from a macro viewpoint, their maybe a few less fraudulent unemployment claims"?

Uh, yeah. If business owners did not sign the documents less people would get money nad therefore less fraud could take place. Happy now? Your "pointless" point has been validated.

Does that mean someone who signs the document is committing fraud? Hardly.

conscious thought said...

Denis, look at the amount of your next UI payment.
That should be punishment enough.

Caledon, my comments seem to get you so riled up and hostile, you need to relax, take a deep breath and enjoy the excitement and vibrant culture that Caledonia has to offer.

I love getting conservatives hostile.

Denis Navratil said...

CTW,I should have to pay a fine equaling the amount I pay in unemployment insurance? Or is paying unemployment insurance sufficient? The distinction is important because latter is not an additional punishment.

Caledonication said...

Caledon, my comments seem to get you so riled up and hostile, you need to relax, take a deep breath and enjoy the excitement and vibrant culture that Caledonia has to offer.
I love getting conservatives hostile.


So there you have it. After miserably failing at every attempt to make your point, you digress completely.

You give yourself way too much credit, CT. I guess that's to overcompensate for that lack of credit you receive from any external sources.

There is apparently no limit to your ignorance is there? Do you spur me to be vocal? Perhaps, but to suggest that “you” could make me hostile, while at the same time indicate that you love to get conservatives hostile; really demonstrates what a little child you really are.

That is reality.

liberalguy said...

Denis,
I think the "punishment", using your words is a moral one. You suspected (correctly, in my opinion), after the fact, that something wasn't right about the situation. You have to live with it... correcting it is easy... just don't sign what you believe to be a fraudulent form. There is NO law requiring you to hand someone an application if you have no jobs. As a successful business owner, I would assume you knew that.

Conscious Thought is right in a moral sense. Like most issues of the day, it CAN'T be boiled down to black and white, despite the apparent will of the blogosphere to make it so. Behind what some on this thread see as an attack, there is some truth. Read PAST the bait, and you will see he really is agreeing with you.

Scott said...

We get these all the time. Not only will I not sign I will not offer my name either.

I actually had one guy try to apply with a beer in his hand.

Denis Navratil said...

liberalguy, thanks for your comment. I think you give CTW undeserved benefit of the doubt. CTW is one of the contributors on this site who seems to have a visceral reaction to much of what I write. So if he/she sees an opportunity, any misstep by me, he/she will pounce. This is what happened here I think, and CTW has overstepped and I am calling him/her on it. Yes, we might agree that I shouldn't have signed the document, but he suggested that by signing, I was "engaging in fraud as well." So I am following this line of reasoning to expose the argument for the nonsense that it is. This is a classical liberal technique, sorry about that liberguy, called moral equivalancy. CTW is trying to blur the lines between actual or assumed fraud and my possibly poor judgement in signing the document. CTW is trying to portray me as a fraud on par with a person milking the taxpayer. The argument is nonsense, but many arguments will turn out to be exactly that if they are inspired not by counscious thought but by emotional disturbance.

Urban Pioneer said...

Dear Denis and Un-Conscience Thought. There was no fraud on your part or mine. The guy asked if you were hiring, you stated :"no" and then he asked you to complete a line on the form, which indicated you were not hiring. End of Fraud concern.

Now if you 15 minutes later offered a job to someone else you could then be sued for racism, or sexism, or any of a dozen, 'isms. If it could be proved. (of course if someone on your staff quit within those 15 minutes, or some other extreme had occurred you'd be OK.)

Here the rub, and I agree with Denis and Kimi and Cal. In the future I'm just not playing the game. Anyone ask I'm not hiring, and I won't sign or give my name. When I am ready to hire I'll contact a Head-hunter service. The one advantage I do have, Is I can't hire someone with no experience in my field.

Unemployment agency in Wisconsin has $12,000.00 of my funds from a previous business venture, No one ever collected a single dollar from that fund. When I closed the orginization, all of my employees had alternate jobs, and no-one was left Hi and Dry. Except ME. I applied for a claim on my own fund, and was denied because I HAD BEEN THE OWNER!!!! I said, well since the business is disolved and no-one will be collecting, can I have my money back? NO I couldn't get $1.00 back. So now when I was unemployed and I can't get any unemployment money!!!!! Great system.
So I have more than a fleeting interest in not participating in the "employee world", until it's absolutely necessary.
'Til then I'm self employed. I'll start creating new jobs, when we stop punishing the job creators.
Don't like it, make your own Job..

Urban Pioneer said...

Quick Post script; that story was from 8 years ago, I have long since restarted my Biz. I just don't forget when the Gov'mint' messes with me.

As for you fools who want these Govt' groups too provide your healthcare....YIKES!!! I hope you don't get Cancer in front of Nurse Bureaucrat.

i'm sorry you don't qualify for Chemo, unless you can prove that no other agency can provide it to you.....

Conscious Thought said...

Liberal Guy, you'll notice when you think and speak not in accordance to the "Free" thinking on Free Racine, you get called "emotionally disturbed" a "child" and an author of "pointless" points that actually end up getting agreed to for some reason.

One of the standard tactics on this blog you'll quickly notice, i like to refer to as selective accountability response. They pretend to believe that everyone needs to be accountable for their own actions, a staunch conservative ideal. This accountability, in reality, has many variables in its application as it depends on who the target is and usually applies only to "visceral detractors" and usually never actually applies to their own actions.

I illustrate, the latest editions of the selective accountability tactics below.

1. Instead of just simply admitting that he shouldn't have signed the document, he ducks and dodges his own role in the episode by saying,..."Yes, we MIGHT agree that I shouldn't have signed the document"...and "my POSSIBLY poor judgement in signing the document"...so he still isn't really accepting accountability for his role, only might, possibly be. Go figure.

2. Denis purposely fails to mention that it was actually his friend, Alderman Helding's exact words that initially suggested the activity of someone falsely looking for a job as fraud. The word fraud doesn't even come up on the entire blog post until Alderman Helding initially suggests it. Responding to Alderman Helding's own assessment of the jobseekers fraud, i then proceed to ask whats his perception of the person who advertantly/inadvertantly enabled the fraud by signing the document. I'm the "visceral detractor" so only my comments are taken to task, and the friendly initiator is left unscathed, un-addressed, and of course, selectively un-accountable.

3. Caledon makes excuse after excuse to try to validate the reasoning of why Denis didn't act on his own premonition to use common sense judgment when signing a document that Denis already suspected from the beginning had a "jobseeker" who may have been less than upstanding in their job search attempts. Jobseeker is vilified, and held accountable. Conservative document signer gets provided a cocktail of creative excuses.

Selective accountability at its finest. You can begin the name calling...

Conscious Thought said...

Almost forgot, to all of my favorite conservatives...

Happy Martin Luther King Day!

Pariah Jeep said...

Well thanks CT - you couldn't possibly mean that to be sarcasm - in other words all of the conservatives here are racists and will be secretly offended?

Denis Navratil said...

Nice lengthy post ctw but no clarification on the punishment question. And as long as I am clarifying things, it was not liberal guy who I was thinking of when I mentioned the emotional disturbance.

Caledonication said...

you'll notice when you think and speak not in accordance to the "Free" thinking on Free Racine, you get called "emotionally disturbed" a "child" and an author of "pointless" points that actually end up getting agreed to for some reason.

You get called emotionally disturbed when you display characteristics consistent with the classic symptoms of an emotionally disturbed individual; such as fixation on Denis regardless of the topic. You do.

You get called a child when you make statements indicating that you indulge in immature behavior, such as intentionally attempting to annoy others to the point of hostility, for the mere “pleasure” of it. You do. For the simple fact that so many people on this blog have to repeatedly explain these things to you, in itself, justifies calling you a child.

You get called "an author of pointless points", because the two points (referred to as pointless), which you were attempting to make, were "pointless". 1. To call me out as speaking on Ald. Helding's behalf, by yourself "speaking on Ald. Helding's behalf", effectively contradicting your own point and thereby making your point, "pointless". 2. By changing your original "point" about Denis committing fraud to a generalized statement about milking taxpayers, you are not making your point; you are simply making a comment in an attempt to get someone (anyone) to agree with you.

Your "points that actually end up getting agreed to for some reason"? Again, you give yourself way too much credit. Nobody has actually agreed to any point that you've attempted to make on the subject. As for the statement that I validated (sarcastically, I might add), may as well have offered the suggestion “trees are wood”. It was that vague and broad. Why I have to explain this is beyond me.

Your nonsense is becoming tiresome. I know what you're thinking, but no that doesn't mean you "win". It simply means that we cannot teach you common sense. If you choose to ignore it, then we will choose to ignore you.

FYI all: The comments made on this topic by CT can only be verified if, at the top of the post where it says "Conscious Thought said..." the words "Conscious Thought" are a blue hyperlink. Otherwise it could be anyone pretending to be CT. Athough, God knows why anyone but anon would want to do that.

Conscious Thought said...

Caledon, your fixation on me is disturbing, and bordering stalker-like. I think its very clear who actually exhibits the emotionally disturbed characteristics.

Caledonication said...

Barely conscious, your ego is fast on the heels of your infinite stupidity.

There's no need for you to continue proving it, you have already removed all potential for doubt.

Anonymous said...

order xanax online .25 xanax and alcohol - xanax pill number