Yes, I work at one of the shitty call centres in this city. Yes, I want to off myself daily. I just wanted to tell every person that walks away from their computer to get help to take off your fucking headset first. We all know you are too dumb to answer the question you are being asked and have to get up in the first place. Even worse, is you look like Corky (yes life goes on) when you walk around with a headset and cord. Yes you are a fucking moron. —Hate My Job
This article appears in Aug 25-31, 2011.
You can always get a job doing security, it’s not like HRM is getting safer or anything.
CORKY…LMAO
..are they hiring? 🙂
Jobs requiring headsets make me sad.
http://www.analogzone.com/grne_052107.jpg
lol they should make you happy that you don’t have to work one PK
Well. They ARE better when it comes to not getting ‘phone arm’, tommy.
I was thinking more like http://bit.ly/oL3nsj
on the job front…. should you lose it….
I can’t believe I’m saying this but we should look at the states and think long and hard….
http://news.yahoo.com/why-drug-testing-poo…
Shit, that’s a great idea.
I had an econ prof at smu who used to be the head of public housing in hfx. he said he’d get applications from 16 year olds who just wanted their own free place away from their parents. He started a new policy of requiring references from a school counselor, teacher, minister, etc….
Applications went down to zero.
You guys think that the mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients is a good idea? Did you read the article? It sounds good but it costs more than it’s worth. And it’s unconstitutional. I’m not sure if it would be unconstitutional in Canada, but it’s still a bad idea.
it’s a slippery slope thomas and i agree with you to a point. i know “think of the _hildren” is overdone but if a _ra_khead is not feeding their kids it seems to defeat the purpose of so_ial assistan_e
When I first heard the idea I liked it but once I actually read into it, it’s a bad idea.
I have a bit of an issue with making them pay for it because if you’re going on welfare… doesn’t that indicate that you don’t have any money? So how are you supposed to pay for a drug test?
Anyway, I think the state has the right to limit what the social purse is paying for — including welfare. If you want drugs that badly, go sell your ass. Welfare funds should be used to pay for housing, and food and other necessities of life, not drugs (or smokes or liquor). Which is why I’m in huge favour of vouchers and automatic payment for rent to landlords — so people on the public tit can’t use it for anything other than its intended purpose.
I think the issue I have is how I used to see SO many people come into the grocery stores I worked in on ‘cheque day’ with a 2-4 and would buy a carton of smokes, while buying cheap chicken weiners, cheap bread and big 8 pop for their kids. Jesus christ maybe skip either the 2-4 or the carton of smokes and buy your kid a fucking chicken breast or some vegetables!
I like your sensibilities TommyJ. We all want those who abuse the system to get off their asses and get a job. Mandatory drug testing is not the way to achieve this. What about people who blow their assistance on booze and smokes. Do they get tested too? Trampling the privacy rights of the most vulnerable is just wrong. I suspect pot-smokers and drinkers don’t ever get enough money from welfare to be able to support their habits so having a job is imperative to most addicts.
PK: addictions are powerful beasts. Not everyone is up for slaying them.
yummy words, oh warrior biker babe
thanks, oh-sis-of-mine…just callin’ ’em as i sees ’em:)
Mandatory drug testing for potential welfare recipients. What a stupid idea! That has to come from the Excited States of America. The idea of social assistance is to help those who suffered a loss of income due to circumstances beyond their control. Yes, it isn’t always applied the way it should be and people do abuse it, what percentage of people, I have no idea.
How welfare recipients spend their money is their business, nobody else’s. Same as how people spend their salary.
The idea is to make people with no income pay for a drug test they can’t afford which would indicate whether or not they take drugs which they can’t afford because, again, they have no income.
If they test negative, the taxpayer gets to pay for the this procedure which was completely unnecessary. If they test positive, benefits would be withheld for one year and they can reapply. What happens to the denied individual during this year? If they could hold a job to help support their habit, they would. If they can’t, this means no income due to the welfare denial could drive them to some sort of criminal activity out of desperation. They get caught, processed, incarcerated, all of which is incredibly more expensive to the taxpayer than the welfare would have been.
Make no mistake, welfare cheques do not cover much. I doubt many on welfare abuse drugs, they can’t afford it.
It’s interesting that a country like the U.S. will give multinational oil companies billions in tax loopholes but will make the poor dance for their pittance. Interesting though not surprising.
Yeah, addictions are powerful, but I always figured the love for your child was more powerful.
My dad managed to quit smoking for me. Cold turkey, in fact. This is someone with next to no discipline. IF he can do it, I’m sure these skeezeballs can too.
If everyone were as adept as your dad, pk, at beating addictions there would be no need for al-anon for coping techniques for families of addicts where they learn love for one’s kids has nothing to do with addictions. Drug and alcohol addictions are complicated and not as cut and dried as smoking habits. Druggies and alkies love their kids too, but they are controlled by the beast within. I’m sure your dad loved you just as much as a smoker as he does as a nonsmoker. Kudos to him for quitting a nasty habit! People with poor coping skills often turn to drugs and alcohols. That doesn’t make them skeezeballs.
Could this be about someone new to their job? I hardly find that fair, considering those training courses are short, and don’t cover a lot of material. Yes, it’s true, walking around with a headset does look lame. But, come on, maybe that’s easier for them. Not only that, but if you hate your job so much, go find a new one. Shine up the ol’ resume, get out of your computer chair, and go get a job you enjoy. It’s really not that hard, I promise.
Tommy…Tommy tommy tommy…
wasn’t it you that suggested it???
http://www.thecoast.ca/LovetheWayWeBitch/a…
“Same goes for welfare recipients. It’s not your money, it’s for a specific purpose, prove that you’re using it for what it’s for.”
that would be the purpose of a test. have a change of heart???
you say this isn’t the route to go… so what is?
any suggestions? you obviously don’t like it that they ‘slack off’
http://www.thecoast.ca/LovetheWayWeBitch/a…
“It’s similar to supporting those who abuse welfare in my opinion, you’re working hard so they can work half assed.”
troodon, you’ve just said this is the lesser of evils and that the system ‘works’ …
just give them a pittance because they COULD be costing us more?
funny, that’s not what you said before…
http://www.thecoast.ca/LovetheWayWeBitch/a…
“Will someone please tell me how to get on the gravy train of welfare/disability paycheques?”
Quit your job and suffer a debilitating injury.
Or prove you’re too mentally unstable/stressed out to continue working. *shrug*
“Will someone please tell me how to get on the gravy train of welfare/disability paycheques?”
“Quit your job and suffer a debilitating injury”
C’mon, zZz you’re reaching. That particular bitch was insulting to anyone who receives compensation due to injury. It was a sarcastic response. I wouldn’t advocate anybody qutting their job for that reason and I certainly wouldn’t wish a severe injury to anyone.
referring mostly to the gravy train part… though I included the whole comment for posterity.
I will admit though that I didn’t go back and read though the entire thread…
so I suppose it could have been sarcasm.
Tough to tell with just a short string of text.
I don’t think Tommy’s going to be able to get out of his conundrum though.
“beee daa bahh oh baaa you” said the wired retard at the call center for mindless fucks. OP, quit…..call centers are not jobs, and pray to Allah not a career.
Like I said zZz, at first it sounded like a good idea, but after reading into it a bit, I conclude that it will likely end up costing the taxpayers MORE to implement this.
I’m all for food stamps and rent vouchers and all that. But drug testing undermines people’s rights and doesn’t accomplish what it’s supposedly meant to.
That’s for the first comment you referenced.
As for the second, all I was saying is that public employees who half ass their job make me sick, just as lazy welfare recipients make many of you sick. To me it’s an accurate comparison.
I got no problem with people who collect welfare, so long as they aren’t abusing it. I have no problem with people working in the public sector, so long as they serve the public to the best of their ability.
It’s an interesting concept but I think what this is really about is taking the attention off of other gross wastes of tax dollars in the US. Gov’t assistance doesn’t make up a very large portion of the budget in the US. It’s minute. There’s a lot more to get up in arms about than people on welfare using drugs. Like PK says, they could be chain smokers or alcoholics and the gov’t would have no problem with that.
That article states that 70% of illegal drug users are employed full time.
lol it’s true PK, I use one at my job, but it’s not strapped to my head, calls don’t come in all THAT often. Most of the time it just sits on it’s little cradle. It’s a wireless one.
And if mandatory drug testing for Welfare isn’t a bad idea, drug testing to collect EI, as is mentioned in this article, DEFINITELY is. You pay into the EI system. You should be able to draw out of it if you get laid off, no questions asked.
Aaaaand also, people on welfare are already policed disproportionately, so if they are found in possession of illegal drugs, they are charged. It’s not like it’s hard to spot a poor drug addict, especially if you’re a cop. Drug addicts with money can be harder to identify.
People should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
It costs more to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate that user than it does to cut him a welfare check. Let them spend the big bucks locking up big time drug dealers, or better yet, policing our borders more effectively. Cocaine and Heroin generally come from outside the country. It takes 6 or 7 grams of weed to make a gram of hash. Hash sells for 10 or 15 bucks a gram, weed sells for 10. Do the math, no one in this country would spend, or lose the opportunity to potentially make, 60 or 70 dollars to make 10 or 15. It comes from far away.
Also, since they started sending troops to Afghanistan there has been a lot more high quality hash on our streets. Any idea why that would be? Just sayin..
The government loves drugs/drug addicts, without them there would be less jobs (customs/border agents, police, COs, prosecutors, counselors, social workers) and people would have to get more creative to make illegal money. Drugs is the easiest bust. People used to “run numbers” (does anyone even know what that means anymore?) bootleg, extort, run gambling rings, and run brothels.
People still do that, but for the most part now it’s all drug money. Weapons and counterfeiting are close behind, and of course identity theft and fraud is on the rise, people trafficking, and kiddie porn too. Still, most crime is drug related.
In comparison to those crimes, it’s a lot easier to prove that someone is involved in drugs, even easier to prove that they were in the possession of drugs.
Basically what I’m trying to say is that it is hypocrisy.
They could be doing more to keep drugs out of our country, but they stand to lose money. If for no other reason than it would slow down the border and discourage people from crossing it to do business.
They could be doing more to ensure that poor people don’t all live in the same densely populated, crime/drug ridden areas, but their solution is to fuck with the bottom end user.
Or they could grow a pair and just legalize the shit. The war on drugs costs more than it helps anyone.
If people want to stop welfare recipients from using drugs and leeching the system, they can volunteer or study to be addictions counselors or social workers. I don’t think any of us would notice much of a difference in our paychecks if a few more people were denied welfare, but you’d be the first to complain about being the victim of a crime from one of those people. Prisoners use drugs too, any idea how those drugs end up in there?
Great concept, would fail in real life.
An answer to your question about running numbers:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5…
Basically, illegal lotteries