In a state/country where prostitution is legal, do you think it's right to cut a person's unemployment benefits if they refuse to prostitute. That actually happened in Berlin.

What would you do? I would tell them to take their benefits and shove them.
*****************************************************
02-19-05, 01:09 AM
DorianGreyed
This presents an interesting dilemma. I would like to hear from the Right on this one, especially the ones that, like Ronald Reagan, view unemployment as "paid vacations" for the poor. How do the Evangelicals feel about this?

Lest anyone think that it couldn't happen here in the US, let me point out that prostitution, in the form of brothels, is legal in most Nevada counties. Nevada's unemployment rate crept up in December (2004) 0.1 percent to 3.8 from November's 3.7 percent.

02-19-05, 07:39 AM
doñadiana
As far as the prostitution goes, I don't think that someone should be obligated to do something they consider "immoral" just for the sake of getting off the unemployment rolls.

But, there are people that know how to milk the welfare system and unemployment benefits and they have worked out a system to keep the benefits coming in. I think that these are the people that Ronald Reagan was referring to. I think that welfare and unemployment benefits should be a safety net for those who are temporarily down and out and need a helping hand to get back on their feet.

DD

02-19-05, 01:05 PM
DvdGStwrt
Well it's a job, and if the economy is tight and it's the only job available....

Seriously I think the article presented the issue that it was difficult to define bar and brothel jobs thus it was left wide open and as a waitress she applied for the bar job, not the bedroom job.

The problem is not the honest folk who are hard on their luck, but those who have abused the system until the point is reached were some pretty strict applications of the law is mandatory to assure that the welfare, the unemployment and the disability funds are there for those that need it.

Would I sink into the sex trade for income? No. But then I do not – never have – relied solely upon the Employment Development office to locate work, and I have worked some pretty nasty jobs in my life, part time hard construction for ridiculous wages, I have worked in tobacco fields and I even worked a job where you repeatedly asked “Would you like to super size that today?”

The problem I see is a woman who being trained as an ‘information technology professional’, was willing to work in bars (which with tips is great pay BTW) but who obviously was not self motivated enough to find a job on her own, instead she relies upon the EDO to supply her with a job, the job they supplied her with is not to her liking. Her choices are not limited to taking that job or not, she could go out and work in fast food, work in a factory, or even work in the fields picking, or planting. Surely there is someone looking for a maid, or looking for a cook or a nanny – surely there are temp jobs and other jobs which may pay low, but could be that part time, temp job that gets her by until she finds that ‘information technology professional’ job.

Perhaps she shouldn’t be so picky?

02-19-05, 02:28 PM
MommyTimesTwo
I say it's perfectly fine...as long as they send men to be prostitutes, too. Seriously though, of course it's wrong. Doesn't really need to be asked. The question is, is there something that she can do about it? As David said, she could find a job on her own, if she put the effort behind it.

Employment offices want you to take the first available job, no matter what it is. For example, a few years ago when my son was first born (almost FIVE years ago, now!!) I couldn't find a job working the opposite shift as my husband, which we wanted so we wouldn't have to pay for day care, which is absurdly expensive. I didn't have much luck, besides returning to being a certified nurses' aide, which I had done for a number of years and absolutely hated. So someone suggested I go to the employment office for our county and see what they could do, because they will help you pay for daycare if you need the help while you train for a job.

So I went, and they had me fill our reams of forms. After all that, the lady looked over my stuff and said "Well, we can get you in training for your certification as a nurses' aide".

"I already HAVE my certification as a nurses' aide! I wanted something that paid enough to live on!"

"That's the best we can get you" she said, really snotty.

I said, "With college and everything, the best I can get is being a nurses' aide?"

She said, "No, you can probably find something better. But we're not going to find it for you. If you want something better, find it yourself!"

Basically, if I was going to ask for help to pay for daycare so I could get a job, I would have to take the job they wanted me to take, which was a minimum wage slave labour position that required no education and very little training, but one for which there were a lot of openings.

(No, I didn't go back to being a CNA. I worked in a doctor's office for a while as an insurance clerk and then my husband joined the military).

If the lady in the article wants a better job, she's going to have it find it herself.

02-19-05, 03:57 PM
aminator2002
It is not okay. I think it's absurd and think that they will likely be revising their laws again. The purpose of legalizing prostitution was certainly not to have people drafted unwillingly into service.

02-19-05, 07:16 PM
honilov
I agree Ami, and that legalizing prostitution was ONLY for the ones that WANTED to stoop that low.

David, you wouldn't put unemployment benefits in the same catagory as welfare. Unemployment benefits are very temporary. People can milk the welfare system for years but very unlikely to milk the unemployment system for long.

02-20-05, 02:33 AM
FredPuli
The link is nonsense, and misleading nonsense at that. The German government would be in breach of European law if it were to insist that any woman who applied to find a job was required to work as a prostitute, that being the first post on offer, or lose benefits. That is so regardless of whether or not prostitution is legal in Germany. Their government would not and could not do it. (And if any petty official has been so incompetent or confused as to try to do it, rest assured that they will be overrruled and re-educated)

European law takes precedence over the law of member countries, by virtue of the treaty which all member countries signed. All member countries incorporated the requirements of the treaty into their own local law. Our parliament, and Germany's, like everyone else's cannot pass any law it likes and enforce any law as it will. If the European Court holds it in breach of European law e.g on the rights of an individual , or on employment, then the law , or the way it is interpreted by the member country, has to be changed. Such rulings are not just in favour of any individual but are binding on the whole country concerned. Sometimes, of course, the effect is not wide because the complaint may be an appeal against a decision which is narrow and peculiar to the individual's case, but here we are talking of something of a national nature.

In most cases the point is taken by a litigant in the local court and, as European law has precedence, the local judge will apply it as far as possible, and so the case ends there.

When such wide rulings occur e.g against the British government, the government changes the law immediately or directs a change in practice.

This is quite apart from any individuals right to sue Germany, or anyone individual, in the European court to overturn any particular judgment by a German or other country's court.

So how is the story news? Because, no doubt, on a strict and literal reading of the German legislation or some code of practice relating to it, it is possible, though foolish, to read it in such a way. Such stories are fodder for political opponents and any of the press, who wish to make their government appear to be inept, unthinking or cruel . Quite a lot of legislation can be mischievously read like that, given the time and enthusiasm for bad points !

One simple example is the most recent; there have been many more serious and general; the the European Court ruled that a couple who were sued by McDonald's for defamation should have been granted Legal Aid by the Britain i.e. they should have received 'taxpayers' money' to fund their defence. Under our legal aid laws cases of defamation, exceptionally, are excluded from the legal aid scheme. This judgment could have meant a change in the law here,to extend legal aid to defamation (both for claimants and defendants) but in truth the Court's ruling was based on the exceptional nature of the case. It was the longest civil trial in our history, at 213 days, and the two litigants had to act for themselves throughout. McDonald's of course spent something like £10,000,000 and hired a big team of top lawyers. So we do not intend to change the law overall. However, while the case was proceeding our Parliament did pass a law to meet just such a case; legal aid may now be granted in any case of an exceptional nature; so it looks as though the government saw the injustice (or saw the ruling coming Wink )

[By the way the couple won on some points, the courts finding against McDonald's on those allegations. The couple had been giving out flyers in which they alleged exploitation of workers, various environmental abuses, cruel farming practices, various breaches of law, etc . The case has been described as the worst ever public relations disaster. You may imagine what fun the media had, whatever their own particular politics or beliefs, in describing this case. McD should have kept quiet over such a trivial matter as two 'green' protestors outside a small McDonald's in some London suburb)

02-20-05, 09:51 AM
DorianGreyed
Thanks, Fred, for pointing that out. I admit to accepting the article at face value, even though I should have checked it out. My only excuse is that I live in the US, where laws are often passed seemingly without a great deal of thought regarding how they can be interpreted. (One of my favorites is the possibly apocryphal law in Kansas that stated that, if two trains shall meet on the same track, each going the opposite direction, neither shall move until the other is gone.)

02-20-05, 08:42 PM
honilov
Fred, since I'm not a lawyer, some of your legal text are kind of a tangled web to me. Do you mean that this story is a lie, and really didn't happen to this young lady? If it's written down in black'n'white how do the non-lawyers know if it's true or not? How do we know if any online news are true or not? Confused

Dorian, what exactly would you have checked out?

02-20-05, 09:47 PM
DorianGreyed
"Dorian, what exactly would you have checked out?" - Honilov

Honilov - The story was filed on 1.30.05. This thread started on 2.18.05. I should have checked other news sources to see if the story was carried, by whom it was carried, if there had been any changes in the original story, and if there were any developments. If no one else carried the story, or if all I saw was reprints of the first story, after 18 days, I would assume that something was bogus about the story. As some on AP Trivia will tell you, I can be a royal pain when it comes to providing and checking out sources. I should expect no less from myself. My dad was a carpenter and wood patternmaker. One of the first things he taught me was to "measure twice, cut once."

02-21-05, 01:23 PM
DvdGStwrt

quote:
Originally posted by honilov:
I agree Ami, and that legalizing prostitution was ONLY for the ones that WANTED to stoop that low.

David, you wouldn't put unemployment benefits in the same catagory as welfare. Unemployment benefits are very temporary. People can milk the welfare system for years but very unlikely to milk the unemployment system for long.


I do put it in the same category, not because I think these are hand outs, but because I believe that the intent of all of these programs is so people have a chance of surviving long enough to get ahead. I see nothing wrong with the honest use of all of these programs to get by until one gets back on their feet (when possible) State disability usually gets people by until the long, harsh process of Federal Disability goes through. Unemployment is supposed to get people through temporarily until the next job, Welfare is supposed to give you a roof and cloths and food until you can get out there and get a job. Each can be and are abused, any person who decides to stay on unemployment as long as possible without putting much effort in the job search is abusing the system – and trust me there are many who see being fired or laid off as being a nice lengthy paid vacation.

I thing you are painting a wrong picture of prostitution, WANTING to "stoop that low" is usually not the case, most are untrained young women who don't know any other job skills and find that the sex trade is about the only thing they can do. Many start out in strip bars, night clubs, brothels (legal ones) as a means to an end, meaning they are making money at night so they can go to school during the day, or raise a child. A legal State controlled brothel is far, far cleaner and safer than a pimp on some street corner BTW.

Most of these women want the same things you do, nice home, good man, to settle down and have children, career, etc. but life is not always nice and throws monkey wrenches into the system delaying or taking away these things from some who have no other choice but to turn to this kind of work in order to survive.

Even the illegal drug addicted whore on the street corner doesn’t WANT to stoop that low, she (or he) is forced into this line of work because of the pressures of life and where it has lead them. Any State that make legal prostitution is not doing it to create a sex slave industry; it is attempting to deal with damage control of the sex trade.

02-21-05, 04:33 PM
honilov
David, you are right in a lot of what you say about the reasons why some people sell their bodies. However, there are a percentage of people who prostitutes because they are just stooping low. There are legal jobs that they could get but they don't want them. Some are working and still prostitutes. Regardless to how you put it, to me, it's stooping low.

02-21-05, 09:27 PM
FredPuli
Honilov, nowhere in the link does it say that this woman has in fact suffered a reduction in benefit. That's because she hasn't, I expect. And the reason why I am so confident that she hasn't is that it would be illegal for the German government, or anyone, to reduce her benefits because she refused a job as a prostitute. It doesn't matter what the rules say or what any German law says, European law forbids it. As European law overrides the law of Germany, just as it does the law in the UK and in France, and in every other country in the European Union,whenever the local law conflicts with it, this 'rule' or 'law' is unenforceable in this case and if any German official or any German court were to try to enforce it as suggested they would be acting illegally. The European Court would overrule and, what is more, fine the German government for the breach and certainly award damages to the woman.

What has happened here is that on one reading of the German law it is theoretically possible that benefits could be reduced and theoretically possible that a brothel keeper could complain. Lots of laws would produce odd results like that if they were read in one way;such a result is usually not forseen and is unintended by the legislators. Lots of fun can be had. One British lawyer, many years ago, tried to present a cheque that was not on paper but was written on the side of a live cow. He succeeded and the bank accepted it; that was because on a literal reading of the law the word 'instrument' (as in negotiable instrument e.g a cheque) did not say that it meant only instruments on paper, or define the material at all. Naturally the parliamentary draftsman who drafted this did not realise that his limited definition could be taken that way.So the cheque could be written out on anything and still be an instrument. We changed the law later, to avoid this amusing tomfoolery becoming popular Big Grin ( The lawyer in question wrote a book giving dozens of examples of equally bizarre possibilities of legal mischief )

02-26-05, 07:05 PM
MommyTimesTwo
Snopes ahoy! That did NOT actually happen in Berlin. It hasn't happened anywhere. (5 minutes, Dor )

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,