Paying Addicts Not to Breed
Ilene Bilenky
A notice on CNN online today- a woman who has adopted 4 children of
addicted "mothers" (loose term) with her husband has started a personal
program to pay addicts to get tubals/vasectomies. The addict has to make
the arrangements (with some guidance) and get the deed done and bring
documentation to this woman, and she hands over $200 in cash. She clearly
acknowledges knowing that these people are doing so for the cash to get
drugs, and feels that preventing more suffering addicted babies is worth
it.
Methinks she'll get flamed somewhat? I wish I knew how to contact her to
offer support. I think it's a great, although desperate, idea. I believe
the article said at least 2 addicts have followed through so far.
Ilene B
Dorothea M. Rovner
In article <ibilenky-081...@ts002d23.box-ma.concentric.net>,
ibil...@cris.com (Ilene Bilenky) wrote:
> Methinks she'll get flamed somewhat? I wish I knew how to contact her to
> offer support. I think it's a great, although desperate, idea. I believe
> the article said at least 2 addicts have followed through so far.
Methinks she better prepare to get sued. Bet you *anything you like*
that at least one of these women will go sobbing to a lawyer about how
she was tricked into being sterilized, and she didn't know what she was
agreeing to, and she wants to have a baaaaaaybeeeeeeeee...
Dorothea
--
Dorothea M. Rovner |
Gradual Student <*> | High Priestess of Mung
dmrovner (at) students.wisc.edu |
Hope Munro Smith
In article <dorothea-ya023180...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
doro...@usa.net (Dorothea M. Rovner) wrote:
> Methinks she better prepare to get sued. Bet you *anything you like*
> that at least one of these women will go sobbing to a lawyer about how
> she was tricked into being sterilized, and she didn't know what she was
> agreeing to, and she wants to have a baaaaaaybeeeeeeeee...
>
Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
minorities, etc. In other words, you're just buying
right back into the system, rather than rebelling against it.
-Hope Munro Smith
(also a childfree graduate student)
doug h.
In article <647okb$h47$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Peggy Currid <cur...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Hope Munro Smith <hop...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> minorities, etc.
> Nice try at putting words in someone's mouth. I don't recall that anyone
> said anything about supporting the sterilization of minorities.
Right, just the sterilization of "undesirables." Next stop, Auschwitz.
Dorothea M. Rovner
In article <34660506...@hermes.rdrop.com>, myt...@agora.rdrop.com
(Laurel Halbany) wrote:
> Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
> have had vasectomies, or with women?
If she's an addict, she has a rather greater-than-average probability
of selling her body. I don't think most people who do that check into
the reproductive status of the buyer.
Peggy Currid
>
>> Methinks she better prepare to get sued. Bet you *anything you like*
>> that at least one of these women will go sobbing to a lawyer about how
>> she was tricked into being sterilized, and she didn't know what she was
>> agreeing to, and she wants to have a baaaaaaybeeeeeeeee...
>>
>
>Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
>the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
>have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
Yep. What's wrong with that?
>minorities, etc.
Nice try at putting words in someone's mouth. I don't recall that anyone
said anything about supporting the sterilization of minorities.
>In other words, you're just buying
>right back into the system, rather than rebelling against it.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point. In my view, the system supports
and encourages unfit people to have children (or at least the system does
nothing to actively discourage it). Not having children, and taking a
stance against those who breed unthinkingly, *is* rebelling against the
system.
Peggy
--
"Granola pisses me off." -- Eric Cartman
Laurel Halbany
doro...@usa.net (Dorothea M. Rovner) wrote:
> Methinks she better prepare to get sued. Bet you *anything you like*
>that at least one of these women will go sobbing to a lawyer about how
>she was tricked into being sterilized, and she didn't know what she was
>agreeing to, and she wants to have a baaaaaaybeeeeeeeee...
Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
have had vasectomies, or with women?
----------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Halbany
mythago@twisty_little_maze.com
(Substitute dashes for underscores to remove spamblock)
naomi pardue
Hope Munro Smith (hop...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
> Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
> the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
> have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
> right back into the system, rather than rebelling against it.
I didn't see anything about sterilizing minorities. Or welfare recipients
for that matter...
Naomi
Ilene Bilenky
In article <647okb$h47$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, cur...@staff.uiuc.edu (Peggy
Currid) wrote:
> Hope Munro Smith <hop...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
As I read the article- the woman has nothing to do with it (except for
placing the ad offering money) until the addict shows her proof of
sterilization. Then she hands over the cash. Not sure I see where she gets
sued.. I imagine she checked into this herself.
Ilene B
Livia
myt...@agora.rdrop.com (Laurel Halbany) wrote:
>doro...@usa.net (Dorothea M. Rovner) wrote:
>
>> Methinks she better prepare to get sued. Bet you *anything you like*
>>that at least one of these women will go sobbing to a lawyer about how
>>she was tricked into being sterilized, and she didn't know what she was
>>agreeing to, and she wants to have a baaaaaaybeeeeeeeee...
>
>Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
>have had vasectomies, or with women?
If "she" is an addict, she may not have great impulse control,
especially when high. And withholding the money after she's slipped
and had fertile sex (and is now carrying a crack baby, perhaps) is
rather like the barn door and the long-gone horse.
E l i s e R a u s c h e n b a c h
>Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
>have had vasectomies, or with women?
Nice idea, but a little tougher to enforce, no? Follow the woman for
the rest of her life and tally up who she has sex with vs. check for a
certificate of some kind from the surgeon.
Elise
Hope Munro Smith
> >Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
> >the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
> >have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
>
> Yep. What's wrong with that?
>
What's wrong with that is that you are assuming one set of priviledges
for yourself (the decision on whether or not to reproduce) and another
for another group of people.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you in particular were
suggesting the sterilization of minorities. However, you need to
realize that once this course of action is advocated for "undesirables"
it becomes harder to contain. Look at what they did with the
mentally disabled and juvenille deliquents back in the 1950s.
Do we really want to go back to that? Did you know that our government
tricked people in India, Asia and Latin America into sterilization because
they believed that was the "answer" to poverty -- when the real cause is
the centuries of economic exploitation and opportunism that European and
American businesses have brought about in the so-called "Third World?"
Again, I don't want to suggest that you,personally, are part of this,
just to point this out to you and encourage you to consider another side
of the issue.
> >In other words, you're just buying
> >right back into the system, rather than rebelling against it.
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point. In my view, the system supports
> and encourages unfit people to have children (or at least the system does
> nothing to actively discourage it). Not having children, and taking a
> stance against those who breed unthinkingly, *is* rebelling against the
> system.
Again, I apologize. What I am arguing is basically philosophical,
so I hope you don't take it personally. What I am trying to argue
is that our society does not encourage unfit people to have children
-- rather it does the opposite. It tries to have unfit people
sterilized or control their fertility with things like norplant, etc.
Or it starts up "self-help" groups for minority teenagers to boost
their self-esteem so that they won't have babies too early in life.
It then encourages those who are at the socio-economic level of
the people in this newsgroup to reproduce because they are what
society thinks of as "ideal parents."
I guess I just know too much about the history of this country to
think that giving cash incentives for sterilization or norplant
are a good idea. People who are on welfare or on drugs are not
there because they have babies. Neither are they in that situation
because of some massive conspiracy to keep certain groups down. They are
there because of the demise of real employment and economic opportunities
for everyone
in the contemporary world, as well as the tendency for our society
to blame everything on personal irresponsibility rather than
structural conditions that make these problems so complex.
I hope that I have made it clear by now that I am not some troll
accusing this newsgroup of being white supremacists or anything
like that. I started looking at the posts because I am in the same
situation that you all are in. However, I cannot just sit aside
and let this issue go by without contributing my viewpoint.
Thank you very much for your time.
-Hope Munro Smith
UT at Austin
naomi pardue
Distribution:
Hope Munro Smith (hop...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
> In article <647okb$h47$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, cur...@staff.uiuc.edu (Peggy
> Currid) wrote:
> > >Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
> > >the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
> > >have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
> >
> > Yep. What's wrong with that?
> >
>
> What's wrong with that is that you are assuming one set of priviledges
> for yourself (the decision on whether or not to reproduce) and another
> for another group of people.
> I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you in particular were
> suggesting the sterilization of minorities. However, you need to
> realize that once this course of action is advocated for "undesirables"
> it becomes harder to contain. Look at what they did with the
> mentally disabled and juvenille deliquents back in the 1950s.
But nobody is suggesting FORCING these women to be sterilized. An
individual person is merely offering some financial incentive for a woman
to voluntarily choose to do so.
> Do we really want to go back to that? Did you know that our government
> tricked people in India, Asia and Latin America into sterilization because
> they believed that was the "answer" to poverty -- when the real cause is
> the centuries of economic exploitation and opportunism that European and
> American businesses have brought about in the so-called "Third World?"
>
Of course having 15 kids is not a very effective way of getting OUT of
the poverty that may have been started by economic exploitation but is
now primarily the result of overpopulation and lack of resources.
> Again, I apologize. What I am arguing is basically philosophical,
> so I hope you don't take it personally. What I am trying to argue
> is that our society does not encourage unfit people to have children
> -- rather it does the opposite. It tries to have unfit people
> sterilized or control their fertility with things like norplant, etc.
And what is wrong with encouraging people who can't care for children to
use birth control?
> It then encourages those who are at the socio-economic level of
> the people in this newsgroup to reproduce because they are what
> society thinks of as "ideal parents."
It is certainly better, IMHO, for children to be born to parents who are
financially and emotionally fit to take care of them, rather than to 15
year olds and poverty stricken drug addicts ... (Which is not to say that
people who don't want kids should be pressured to have them, but only
that those who are NOT able to be decent parents should be pressured to
NOT have them.)
> are a good idea. People who are on welfare or on drugs are not
> there because they have babies.
But having repeated babies is an excellent way to keep from getting OFF
welfare. (You can't get job training or a job for that matter if you have
to care for a newborn and a toddler and a preschooler .. and even if you
could get a job, you couldn't pay for the daycare. So discouragign women
on welfare from having MORE children is, to my mind, a reasonable plan.
Neither are they in that situation
> because of some massive conspiracy to keep certain groups down. They are
> there because of the demise of real employment and economic opportunities
> for everyone
My local paper has 2-3 pages of want ads every day. In large cities there
are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
Naomi
Hope Munro Smith
In article <dorothea-ya023180...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
doro...@usa.net (Dorothea M. Rovner) wrote:
> In article <34660506...@hermes.rdrop.com>, myt...@agora.rdrop.com
> (Laurel Halbany) wrote:
>
> > Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
> > have had vasectomies, or with women?
>
> If she's an addict, she has a rather greater-than-average probability
> of selling her body. I don't think most people who do that check into
> the reproductive status of the buyer.
If the woman who was offering the bucks really cared, she would
pay for each addicted mother to go through drug rehab, and then
help them find a job so they could take care of their own children.
Most addicts continue to be so because they can't afford the cost
of getting off drugs.
-Hope, the grad student
Dorothea M. Rovner
In article <hopems-1111...@dial-80-3.ots.utexas.edu>,
hop...@mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) wrote:
> If the woman who was offering the bucks really cared, she would
> pay for each addicted mother to go through drug rehab, and then
> help them find a job so they could take care of their own children.
> Most addicts continue to be so because they can't afford the cost
> of getting off drugs.
Tell me another one. Anywhere *I've* ever been in the US, drug rehab
has been available on a sliding fee scale, usually government-subsidized.
Used to work at such a facility myself, in fact.
And AA and NA are free, aside from transportation to meetings.
Ilene Bilenky
I wonder if the poster has any real world experience here?
I do.
"The cost of getting off drugs" is precisely Medicaid paying for a detox.
(again. and again.) There is NO cost to getting off cocaine, as it is not
physically addictive, that is, needs no medical treatment if stopping. All
a detox does for cocaine is locks the door so the addict can't get more
coke. A rather expensive way to lock a door.
I get tired of liberals (I assume it's "liberals") who keep saying "money
for treatments beds" as if every addict can use it, and every addiction
has treatment. People often check into detox to lower their addiction dose
so it's easier to keep using. They often check in at certain times of the
month because they've used up their welfare check and can't afford drugs
until the next check comes.
The article I posted originally about is about a woman who does *really
care*, havind adopted 4 drug-addicted babies of "mothers". And she's only
offering a financial incentive to get permanent birth control.
Does the poster really believe that drug addicts just need enough money to
go to the Betty Ford Center and will then walk into a job with support?
Dream on. And keep those tax dollars flowing.
Ilene B
Ilene Bilenky
I'm afraid the ivory tower naivete (and rhetoric) is rearing its head here.
By the way, the original post didn't involve governments *at all*- a
private citizen decided to pay addicts to get sterilized (after she
adopted 4 babies from addicts and saw them detox- now that's a real
liberalizing experience)
Hope, many of us are quite well-versed in the political rhetoric (not
invented recently or in university) of capitalistic imperialism etc. etc.
I saw starving kids in Haiti. Maybe the French shouldn't have taken all
the hardwood forests down to make millions and maybe the Marines shouldn't
have been there in 1915 and so on and so forth.. however, the only useful
thing I felt I did there was give Depo-Provera shots in health clinics--
and they weren't then approved in the U.S. Nuthin' like a little kid with
protruding belly and reddish hair from protein inadequacy.
I not-so-gently suggest that the grad student needs to get out a little
more often.
Ilene B "tired of middle-class knee-jerk righteous liberal academics"
> Hope Munro Smith (hop...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
> : Do we really want to go back to that? Did you know that our government
Jean Coyle
Ilene Bilenky wrote:
>
> I'm afraid the ivory tower naivete (and rhetoric) is rearing its head here.
> By the way, the original post didn't involve governments *at all*- a
> private citizen decided to pay addicts to get sterilized (after she
> adopted 4 babies from addicts and saw them detox- now that's a real
> liberalizing experience)
> Hope, many of us are quite well-versed in the political rhetoric (not
> invented recently or in university) of capitalistic imperialism etc. etc.
> I saw starving kids in Haiti. Maybe the French shouldn't have taken all
> the hardwood forests down to make millions and maybe the Marines shouldn't
> have been there in 1915 and so on and so forth.. however, the only useful
> thing I felt I did there was give Depo-Provera shots in health clinics--
> and they weren't then approved in the U.S. Nuthin' like a little kid with
> protruding belly and reddish hair from protein inadequacy.
> I not-so-gently suggest that the grad student needs to get out a little> more often.
I agree Ilene,
And she needn't wander far from her own home to see children living in
cold,filthy, cockroach infested homes with no food in the fridge,
and a 5 yr old in charge of watching two younger kids (all fathered by
different men) while mom is out hooking to feed her crack habit.
All of this luxury of course being funded by our tax dollars.
Jean
Jean Coyle
Hope Munro Smith wrote:
>
> In article <dorothea-ya023180...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
> doro...@usa.net (Dorothea M. Rovner) wrote:
>
> > In article <34660506...@hermes.rdrop.com>, myt...@agora.rdrop.com
> > (Laurel Halbany) wrote:
> >
> > > Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
> > > have had vasectomies, or with women?
> >
> > If she's an addict, she has a rather greater-than-average probability
> > of selling her body. I don't think most people who do that check into
> > the reproductive status of the buyer.
>
> pay for each addicted mother to go through drug rehab, and then
> help them find a job so they could take care of their own children.
> Most addicts continue to be so because they can't afford the cost
> of getting off drugs.
>
Do you really believe that ? All one must do to get treatment is to
present oneself to the nearest emergency and state that you are
depressed as result of your addiction and are seriously considering
suicide. You will then be given a treatment bed..whether you've got
insurance or not.
As for finding a job, if I earning $14 and hour am finding it a
stretch to support 2 kids ,how on earth is an addict, new to recovery
going to swing it on $5.25 an hour minium wage ?
Jean
Hope Munro Smith
In article <ibilenky-270...@ts004d17.box-ma.concentric.net>,
ibil...@cris.com (Ilene Bilenky) wrote:
> I wonder if the poster has any real world experience here?
> I do.
> "The cost of getting off drugs" is precisely Medicaid paying for a detox.
> (again. and again.) There is NO cost to getting off cocaine, as it is not
> physically addictive, that is, needs no medical treatment if stopping. All
> a detox does for cocaine is locks the door so the addict can't get more
> coke. A rather expensive way to lock a door.
> I get tired of liberals (I assume it's "liberals") who keep saying "money
> for treatments beds" as if every addict can use it, and every addiction
> has treatment. People often check into detox to lower their addiction dose
> so it's easier to keep using. They often check in at certain times of the
> month because they've used up their welfare check and can't afford drugs
> until the next check comes.
> The article I posted originally about is about a woman who does *really
> care*, havind adopted 4 drug-addicted babies of "mothers". And she's only
> offering a financial incentive to get permanent birth control.
> Does the poster really believe that drug addicts just need enough money to
> go to the Betty Ford Center and will then walk into a job with support?
> Dream on. And keep those tax dollars flowing.
> Ilene B
Gosh, I'm really surprised that I came off as a knee-jerk liberal.
If anything, I even further towards the political left -- that is,
progressive rather than liberal. I certainly
don't think that just throwing money at a problem will make it go
away, that is why I don't consider myself a knee-jerk liberal.
You're right -- I don't really believe that drug addicts can just check
into Betty Ford -- or AA or NA. And you're right, I'm not an expert on
this subject, and am sorry that I came off as a self-righteous academic
or whatever it was that someone else called me. However, the point I
was trying to make is that why is the woman the news article only
interested in paying off a few addicts when she could use her time
and resources to find solutions that could benefit a larger group of
people? These solutions wouldn't even need to cost money -- she could
encourage her other well-to-do friends to help out in the community,
mentor individuals as
they get off drugs and find work, etc.
It's obvious that what we've got in place doesn't work very well. But I
guess what I am proposing would necessitate a larger shift in the way
people interact with each other than can happen with a few new social
programs or every increasing tax dollars. Since I"m just a folklore major,
I obviously don't
have the expertise or even a plan to work this out. I'm just trying to
offer my own two cents based on things I've read and experienced, or things
my friends and classmates have experienced regarding this issue.
-Hope_
Hope Munro Smith
In article <ibilenky-270...@ts004d20.box-ma.concentric.net>,
ibil...@cris.com (Ilene Bilenky) wrote:
> I guess I think of "liberals" (having lived for years in the People's
> Republic of Cambridge) as people who have overarching theories of "the
> system" and rhetoric of "capitalistic imperialism" and so on to address
> very real daily specific problems. To me, a "progressive" is a liberal
> with a touch of common sense. (I have no idea what label I carry- hate to
> think that belief in reality *as it is now* and preference for personal
> responsibility would make me into a neo-Nazi).
Ack -- I know what you mean! I'm a recent transplant to Texas,
having lived most of my life in New England. This is the essential
difference between me and my sister.
> I sounded a bit harsh on Hope (who, me?) as there was this righteous tone,
> as if readers had never heard of imperialism and so on- perhaps the fervor
> of the recently converted/informed.
Don't worry, I didn't take it personally. I basically am still
working through my recent conversion to progressive politics and obviously
haven't thought thru everything. Didn't want to come off
as self-righteous but that's the difficulties of expressing oneself
on newsgroups. I'm a bit better off in "real time" discussions.
> I think the woman paying addicts not to breed has no particular power in
> society (I don't remember reading that they were at all "well to do") and
> in fact, if she knows addicts enough to meet with them to pay them off,
> may well live in their neighborhoods.
Good point. But interceding in this way is too close to the position
of the religious right for me to be comfortable with it. I'm not
saying that the woman is not altruistic, just that the issue needs
to be considered amongst an historical perspective -- particularly
regarding reproductive rights in the U.S. And that she shouldn't be
surprised if, for example, the African-American community is not
exactly thrilled with this idea. But this is just a hypothetical
thing I'm talking about, not something that would necessarily happen
(as is this whole discussion, for that matter.)
-Hope_
E l i s e R a u s c h e n b a c h
However, the point I
>was trying to make is that why is the woman the news article only
>interested in paying off a few addicts
She did much more than that, Hope. She adopted those addicts' babies
and saved them from a likely horrible childhood shuttled from foster
home to foster home.
Far be it from me to advocate a "1000 points of light" mindset, but
she was doing what she could do --- in the face of incompetent
government and overwhelming problems. I admire her for it.
>These solutions wouldn't even need to cost money -- she could
>encourage her other well-to-do friends to help out in the community,
>mentor individuals as
>they get off drugs and find work, etc.
>
Mentoring *children* works a lot better. Big Brother/Big Sister works
far better than trying to salvage the lives of adults. Better to show
children that it's OK to be smart, to achieve, to get good grades, to
go against the grain to be true to yourself.
Elise
E l i s e R a u s c h e n b a c h
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:23:02 GMT, jy...@psu.edu (Jackie) wrote:
>Wait a minute, addicts can't afford the cost of getting off drugs???? If
>they can afford to use drugs they can afford to get off drugs.
>
Many addicts can "afford" drugs because they *deal* drugs. If they
get clean, we can hardly expect them to keep dealing in order to pay
for treatment, can we?
Elise
Ilene Bilenky
In article <hopems-1211...@dial-103-31.ots.utexas.edu>,
hop...@mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) wrote:
> In article <ibilenky-270...@ts004d20.box-ma.concentric.net>,
> ibil...@cris.com (Ilene Bilenky) wrote:
>
By the way- the article didn't mention the race of anyone involved. The
woman could well have been of color.
Oh the narrow vision of the middle-class-afflicted.. :0
Ilene B
Brenda Peters
naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
<649tfu$57u$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>...
> (welfare reference partly snipped)
> Neither are they in that situation
> > because of some massive conspiracy to keep certain groups down. They
are
> > there because of the demise of real employment and economic
opportunities
> > for everyone
>
> My local paper has 2-3 pages of want ads every day. In large cities there
> are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
>
> Naomi
>
Oh, please. As someone with a Master's degree who sent out over 100
resumes and got only three interviews, I don't see any abundance of
employment. Yes, I did try for MOSTLY jobs that were "beneath" me because
I needed the money. Jobs just aren't that easy to get, and if you have to
suddenly pay for child care AND try to, oh, say, get food too, it just
isn't going to be a happy situation for anyone.
Brenda (who, if she hears ONE more jolly comment about how it's such a
GREAT job market.....)
Brenda Peters
Jean Coyle <jean...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<3469B1...@earthlink.net>...
> Ilene Bilenky wrote:
> >
> > I'm afraid the ivory tower naivete (and rhetoric) is rearing its head
here.
>
> > I not-so-gently suggest that the grad student needs to get out a
little> more often.
> B "tired of middle-class knee-jerk righteous liberal academics"
> >
Hey, be nice to us righteous liberal grad student academics! If we came
out of our ivory towers, we'd have to compete for jobs with everyone else!
And we might even take 'em away from someone else. An astounding number of
us now are, shall we say, from diverse backgrounds, and we're doing some
amazing things to old theories based on our life experience. Sometimes it
takes a while to work out all the bugs. (hint: besides, not all of us
agree on things, just like all us CFers don't totally agree.)
Brenda (cranky after having had a great conversation with someone about CF
and then having a lousy class)
Kent Parks
Brenda Peters (71543...@compuserve.com) wrote:
: >
: > My local paper has 2-3 pages of want ads every day. In large cities there
: > are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
: Oh, please. As someone with a Master's degree who sent out over 100
: resumes and got only three interviews, I don't see any abundance of
: employment. Yes, I did try for MOSTLY jobs that were "beneath" me because
: I needed the money. Jobs just aren't that easy to get, and if you have to
: suddenly pay for child care AND try to, oh, say, get food too, it just
: isn't going to be a happy situation for anyone.
:
: Brenda (who, if she hears ONE more jolly comment about how it's such a
: GREAT job market.....)
Hear, Hear!! Hear, hear, HEAR!!!!!
As ANOTHER one with a Masters, sending out zillions of resumes for jobs
that are "beneath" me just to get my foot in the door, and has had about
the same number of interviews, I am sick of hearing about this "great job
market", too! About 95% of the jobs require at least 2-3 years experience
in the exact kind of job that is being offered (why would someone leave
one job after 3 years and be in the market for one EXACTLY like it?).
OTOH, in the retail/service jobs, they can't get people at all...THAT'S
where all the jobs are, with nobody willing to fill them, it seems. At
least around here.
Don't tell ME how thick the want ads are...
Kent
Hope Munro Smith
In article <01bcf097$a2a0b3e0$53cd...@usinet.bdleahy.ibm.net>, "Brenda
Peters" <71543...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Oh, please. As someone with a Master's degree who sent out over 100
> resumes and got only three interviews, I don't see any abundance of
> employment. Yes, I did try for MOSTLY jobs that were "beneath" me because
> I needed the money. Jobs just aren't that easy to get, and if you have to
> suddenly pay for child care AND try to, oh, say, get food too, it just
> isn't going to be a happy situation for anyone.
>
> Brenda (who, if she hears ONE more jolly comment about how it's such a
> GREAT job market.....)
Brenda made the point that I was attempting to make exactly. There is
a definite lack of REAL employment opportunites for people at every
level of education. That is, jobs that allow people to use the
expertise they've gained through education, and/or pay a decent
living wage.
-Hope_
Rabbit
Brenda Peters wrote:
>
> naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
> <649tfu$57u$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>...
> > (welfare reference partly snipped)
> > Neither are they in that situation
> > > because of some massive conspiracy to keep certain groups down. They
> are
> > > there because of the demise of real employment and economic
> opportunities
> > > for everyone
> >
>
> > are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
> >
That's the same kind of cause=effect reasoning that says that if my
paper only reports three armed robberies and not the five they reported
the previous day, it's obvious that crime rates are falling ...
The number of jobs advertised isn't indicative of the job market; the
statistics rely on how many people are trying to get those jobs. These
are two entirely different numbers.
Rabbit
naomi pardue
Brenda Peters (71543...@compuserve.com) wrote:
> > My local paper has 2-3 pages of want ads every day. In large cities there
> > are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
> > Naomi
> >
>
> resumes and got only three interviews, I don't see any abundance of
> employment. Yes, I did try for MOSTLY jobs that were "beneath" me because
> I needed the money. Jobs just aren't that easy to get, and if you have to
> suddenly pay for child care AND try to, oh, say, get food too, it just
> isn't going to be a happy situation for anyone.
The particular TYPE of job you want may be hard to find. The hours you
prefer may be hard to find. But if you were willing to flip burgers or
wait tables or punch a cash register 3rd shift at the 7-11 or clean rooms
in a hotel ... you could get A job.
Naomi
Ilene Bilenky
Well, guess what. Even if you lie and hide your education, if someone
sniffs you out as "too smart" or "overqualified", well, then, you can't
get a job "beneath you. Try it sometime and see.
Ilene B "worst job ever- the onion ring room at Mrs. Paul's Frozen Foods"
In article <64hphq$obm$5...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, npa...@indiana.edu
Dorothea M. Rovner
In article <hopems-1011...@dial-70-14.ots.utexas.edu>,
hop...@mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) wrote:
> Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
> the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
> have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
> minorities, etc. In other words, you're just buying
> right back into the system, rather than rebelling against it.
Horsepuckey. Read my post again; I didn't support a damn thing.
I merely remarked that this woman's program could have some very
unfortunate consequences for her.
That said, I *do* think it is possible to lose one's so-called
"right" to reproduce. (On my really ornery days, I deny that there
is such a right in the first place; it really oughta be a privilege.)
Drug addiction and abusive behavior should be cause for forfeiture
of that right. (Possibly depending on the drug. My personal jury is
out on this one, although I tend to lean toward proscribing *all*
addictions, from caffeine on up, in reproducers.)
Poverty per se should not be a criterion, IMO, but a serious lack
of effort toward escaping poverty possibly should (although obviously
such a criterion would cause *immense* implementation headaches).
Minority status has *nothing whatever* to do with it, and I
challenge you to find one place where I say it does. I know of the
history of minority sterilization in this country, and I find it
thoroughly appalling. Those who protested it had every right to. It
was disgusting.
What I was saying, essentially, is that a contract is a contract
EXCEPT where it involves sterilization, it seems. Dipshits who have
gotten sterilized and have sued doctors over it later because "they
didn't think" have completely destroyed the landscape for young people
(like me) who really *do* want sterilization. (Note the difference
between this and the sterilization-of-minorities programs: the minorities
were *forcibly* sterilized, often *fraudulently* so, whereas the dipshits
I just mentioned usually had *signed consent forms* and had not been
coerced in any way.)
The woman who pays sterilized addicts is going to find herself in
the same legal morass, is what I was saying. And that's *all* I was
saying.
naomi pardue
Ilene Bilenky (ibil...@cris.com) wrote:
> I must agree with Naomi- all those computer science majors with 5-10 years
> of experience in Unix and C++ and client-server yadda etc. blah should
> sure stop whining- after all, 9 of 10 listed jobs are just for those few
> people.
I strongly suspect that most drug addicts who are selling their bodies to
buy drugs are not
computer science majors with 5-10 years of experience
(At least not THAT kind of experience...)
Naomi
E l i s e R a u s c h e n b a c h
On 14 Nov 1997 15:54:49 GMT, ibil...@cris.com (Ilene Bilenky) wrote:
>I must agree with Naomi- all those computer science majors with 5-10 years
>of experience in Unix and C++ and client-server yadda etc. blah should
>sure stop whining- after all, 9 of 10 listed jobs are just for those few
>people.
Well, I'm still going to whine (a little), Ilene --- even though most
of the jobs listed in the Boston Globe, at least, are
computer-oriented, the fax is that 60+% of those jobs are *not* filled
by responses to those ads. They are filled by personal connections,
and who you know (people with whom you've worked at other jobs who
know what you can do, etc.). So even tho the Help Wanted section
might seem to be bulging, it's not necessarily all that meaningful.
Elise
(who should know --- her software-husband Tom got his last 3 jobs via
"personal connections").
morgans1@outoutdamnedspam
On 14 Nov 1997 15:08:42 GMT, npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
>The particular TYPE of job you want may be hard to find. The hours you
>prefer may be hard to find. But if you were willing to flip burgers or
>wait tables or punch a cash register 3rd shift at the 7-11 or clean rooms
>in a hotel ... you could get A job.
Ever hear the word "overqualified?" Many employers won't even _hire_ a
college graduate for a McJob (for example). My husband ran into that
when he was between jobs a couple of years ago (after leaving his
security job due to repeated abuses by his employer)... seemed like he
was either underqualified or overqualified for everything! And yes, he
did apply for flipping burgers, punching cash registers, cleaning
offices, yadda yadda yadda. Thank deity for temp agencies, although we
had a rough couple of months where said agency only had him working
one or two days a week because _they_ were overstaffed with people in
the same situation as my husband. :-(
--
Mari E. Morgan, morgans1 AT mindspring DOT com
"...ever get the feeling that the story's too damn real
and in the present tense?"
Yes, that's a spamblock. Replace it with mindspring.com to email me.
Ilene Bilenky
I must agree with Naomi- all those computer science majors with 5-10 years
of experience in Unix and C++ and client-server yadda etc. blah should
sure stop whining- after all, 9 of 10 listed jobs are just for those few
people.
Ilene B (sarcasm clue)
> > naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
Jim Paradis
ibil...@cris.com (Ilene Bilenky) writes:
> I must agree with Naomi- all those computer science majors with 5-10 years
> of experience in Unix and C++ and client-server yadda etc. blah should
> sure stop whining- after all, 9 of 10 listed jobs are just for those few
> people.
What's funny is, 7 years ago when Tamara had graduated and the job market
had completely dried up due to the downsizing frenzy and she couldn't
find an entry-level computer job to save her life, I remember muttering:
"Well, in five years those companies had better not start whining about
a shortage of engineers with five years' experience!"
Predictably, though, that seems to be exactly what's happening...
--
Jim Paradis j...@jrp.tiac.net http://www.tiac.net/users/jrp/index.html
"It's not procrastination, it's my new Just-In-Time Workload Management System!"
Raydioface
In article <64gm7r$s4p$1...@pinta.pagesz.net>, kmp...@NOSPAM.pagesz.net
(Kent Parks) writes:
>
>Brenda Peters (71543...@compuserve.com) wrote:
>: >
>: > My local paper has 2-3 pages of want ads every day. In large cities there
>: > are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
>:
>: Oh, please. As someone with a Master's degree who sent out over 100
>: resumes and got only three interviews, I don't see any abundance of
>: employment. Yes, I did try for MOSTLY jobs that were "beneath" me because
>: I needed the money. Jobs just aren't that easy to get, and if you have to
>: suddenly pay for child care AND try to, oh, say, get food too, it just
>: isn't going to be a happy situation for anyone.
>:
>: Brenda (who, if she hears ONE more jolly comment about how it's such a
>: GREAT job market.....)
>
>Hear, Hear!! Hear, hear, HEAR!!!!!
>As ANOTHER one with a Masters, sending out zillions of resumes for jobs
>that are "beneath" me just to get my foot in the door, and has had about
>the same number of interviews, I am sick of hearing about this "great job
>market", too! About 95% of the jobs require at least 2-3 years experience
>in the exact kind of job that is being offered (why would someone leave
>one job after 3 years and be in the market for one EXACTLY like it?).
>OTOH, in the retail/service jobs, they can't get people at all...THAT'S
>where all the jobs are, with nobody willing to fill them, it seems. At
>least around here.
>
>Don't tell ME how thick the want ads are...
>
I only have a measely BA, (and a liberal arts grad at that!) and I somehow
ended up a public radio producer. Now, I'm not a stupid person, I do a lot
of work with computers, and I really can be taught new skills.... However,
when *I* check the job listings.....sigh. As my boss and I joke, we look
through them and say "can't do that page, can't do that page, can't do that
page". From what I see in the Columbus paper, the better paying jobs are
VERY SPECIFIC. I feel badly for those students who, like me, didn't know
from age 8 they wanted to be a chemical engineer or ultrasound technologist
and ended up majoring in something "useless" like history or sociology.
(My majors, and NO, I DON'T think they are useless....I just wish the rest
of the world agreed.....)
Colleen
Rabbit
>
> The particular TYPE of job you want may be hard to find. The hours you
> prefer may be hard to find. But if you were willing to flip burgers or
> wait tables or punch a cash register 3rd shift at the 7-11 or clean rooms
> in a hotel ... you could get A job.
>
Good point. Of course, you'd probably lose the house that you'd bought
when you were employed before ... even if it's just a very small one.
And of course you'd have to sell any car you owned. Your savings would
disappear, and next thing you knew, you'd be looking for a basement
apartment and worrying that one wrong move (a week's worth of illness,
perhaps) could have you out on the street.
Rabbit
Gary Brainin
In article <19971115192...@ladder01.news.aol.com> terr...@aol.com (Terry SC2) writes:
> <<Ilene B "worst job ever- the onion ring room at Mrs. Paul's Frozen Foods">>
> Wow, is that really worse than the Woolworth's lunch counter? (I
> lasted all of two weeks.) ;)
Mine was microfilming: Lay piece of paper on table. Press button.
Lay next piece of paper on table. Press button. Repeat exactly
10,000 times. Change film. Start over.
-Gary
--
|Gary Brainin | "...the right to be let alone--the most
|gar...@spies.com Ramblings and | comprehensive of rights and the right most
|anti-spam instructions at: | valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. U.S.
|http://www.spies.com/garygm/ | (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
Terry SC2
Kent Parks
I changed the subject line of this thread...
Rebecca Bellerue Cosand (rco...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:
: I hear you! I have my bachelors (political science, with a minor in
: history), and I have been told I am overqualified because of the degree,
: and underqualified because I haven't finished my masters yet. On the other
: hand, Aaron is still working on his degree, but companies trip over
: themselves to hire him because he is a programmer. I should have been a
: computer science major......
This reminds me of when I first got out with MY 'useless' 1st BA
(Linguistics & French!): I had worked as a bank teller during summers
while in college, yet they would not hire me as a full-time teller
"because we don't hire people with degrees as tellers", yet I couldn't go
into management training because I did NOT have the kind of degree they
wanted. Actually, I would have hated banking, anyway, but I'd have done
just fine at it...
: Rebecca (who is getting really sick and tired of the same recruiters
: calling with *fabulous* opportunities in Raleigh-Durham, despite the
: repeated statement of "I am only looking in Boston")
Hey, Rebecca, what's wrong with Raleigh-Durham?? That's where Jill & I are
(& Dorothea is from). Actually, this is the precise market that only wants
"3-5 years of experience" in programming-type things. Forward some of
those "fabulous opportunities" to me! :)
Kent
Marisa Wood, aka The Incredible She-Hulk
On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 morgans1@outoutdamnedspam wrote:
> as worst were actually up there on the fun scale. One was doing
> (musta been prophetic), and the other was a cleaner/playmate at a
> kennel (equal time cleaning cages and playing with miscellaneous
> critters). O'course, animals don't care if your shirt is stained or if
> you have zits, just as long as you play nice, talk friendly, and carry
> food. *grin*
:)
I've often thought about volunteering at someplace like a vet clinic or an
animal shelter, just so I could pet and play with the kitties. I cat-sit
whenever I get the chance, and of course this sometimes involves cleaning
up kitty vomit and cleaning out cat boxes.... :P
But I can think of worse things I've done than clean up after a cat:
1. Customer service rep at a publishing company. The office mgr. was
Evil Incarnate, and the job itself required me to be nice to a LOT of
assholes. I lasted there three weeks.
2. Food server in the cafeteria in college. A lot of students would
treat the person behind the counter like $#!+; and, again, I HAD to be
nice to the jerks. I did this for two years and HATED most of it,
although I didn't mind being assigned to the kitchen and doing things like
making salad dressing or washing dishes.
3. Motel maid. I cleaned a lot of disgusting rooms, and, at one
motel-maid job I did, the boss was a b*tch and I had to grit my teeth and
bear it. Fortunately I never lasted at a housekeeping job for more than
one summer.
Some jobs I've done that I've LOVED, or at least LIKED:
1. The day job I'm doing now, while I look for a literary agent. I'm an
accounting assistant at a jewelry company. I started out as a file clerk
at this company two years ago, thinking I'd quit as soon as a library job
came along.
I ended up staying because: A) The pay was only okay, but
the benefits were great; B) My coworkers, and the higher-ups in the
company, treated me like a human; C) Since the job required almost no
public contact, I didn't have to deal with assholes; D) I've found out
math and numbers don't scare me as much as I thought they would; E) I
DROOL over colored gemstones, and, yes, I DO get employee discounts! :)
2. Scene painter/carpenter/tool room supervisor for a university theatre
dept. I LOVED this job, the full two years I did it. (The only reason I
quit it, was that I graduated, and moved to the other end of the state.)
I had a great boss. When D. said "equal opportunity," he meant it. He
had a male secretary, and I was actually one of the first women hired in
"the Shop." He really did try to find the best person for a job, and
would often create one to match the skills of an employee. I got to be
"Tool Room Supervisor" because I had two things he noticed, and wanted for
the job: "stick-to-itive-ness" and organizational skills.
I could also, more or less, set my own hours, and even if I wasn't writing
or singing or acting, I was doing *some*thing artistic.
Marisa Wood "Under the armour of that iron woman/
So many things lie within"
ish...@blarg.net Julia Fordham, "Island"
Kent Parks
My first job out of college--which lasted two weeks and one of them was
training--was selling carpet-cleaning systems; not quite a door-to-door
vacuum cleaner salesman but not far from it. Considering that I am VERY
shy to begin with, I'm not sure how I even lasted as long as I did (I only
ended up with this job because my dad was pressuring me nonstop to get a
job). Of course I subjected everyone I knew to my "demo" and to this day
that is a humiliating part of my life I wish I could erase.
A couple of friends and I were once discussing all of the horrid,
humiliating things we've done for jobs, and we tried to think of the MOST
"ruint" job we could--not long after that, at the State Fair, we saw a
paintball booth where people would pay for X number of shots and then just
shoot at things in the "shooting gallery"--then we noticed that one of the
"objects" was in fact a PERSON, dressed up like a "fugitive" for people to
shoot at. We may have found our answer...
Kent
JennieD-O'C
Rebecca Bellerue Cosand <rco...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I hear you! I have my bachelors (political science, with a minor in
>history), and I have been told I am overqualified because of the degree,
>and underqualified because I haven't finished my masters yet.
Ain't it fun? If I hadn't been lucky enough to get a job as a professor,
I would have been unqualified to do *anything* else, and too educated to
be hired into a trainee position in a new career. You see, I have
bachelor's degrees in German and Linguistics, a master's degree in
Germanic Linguistics, and a Ph.D. in Germanic Linguistics. Oh, yeah,
that's really worth something in the real world. <rolls eyes> "Career
track" is fine if you're lucky enough to get a career job, but when I
think of how close I came to being unable to do anything but flip burgers,
I can only shudder.
---
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
naomi pardue
Gary Brainin (gar...@goonsquad.spies.com) wrote:
> In article <19971115192...@ladder01.news.aol.com> terr...@aol.com (Terry SC2) writes:
>
Working in a bindery. I spent a week making boxes. Then I spent a week
taking boxes apart. Then I spent 2 weeks opening a book to page 26 and
turning it over. (During which we were not allowed to talk to anyone, for
fear we wouldn't be able to concentrate on this highly complex task.)
Naomi
Debbie Schwartz
On 15 Nov 97 19:35:03 GMT, gar...@goonsquad.spies.com (Gary Brainin)
wrote:
> Mine was microfilming: Lay piece of paper on table. Press button.
>Lay next piece of paper on table. Press button. Repeat exactly
>10,000 times. Change film. Start over.
At a printer's, feeding big stacks of pages into a collating machine.
Put big stack of paper into hopper. Push button. Put big stack of
collated pages into box. Repeat for 8 hours. Call temp agency who
got you job and ask for something else.
Telephone soliciter. Lasted 2 weeks.
Dry cleaner counter worker (part time during high school
Inhaling all those fumes and dealing with irate customers.
--
Debbie Schwartz d...@halcyon.com * Killfiling idiots since 1989 *
"I'm not crazy, I've just been in a very bad mood for 40 years."
_Steel Magnolias_
* I do not do business with spammers. * This post copyrighted 1997.
naomi pardue
Distribution:
Well, I had no job at all for 3 years. We didn't lose the house. We
didn't lose the cars. We did use up some of our savings.
(And, lest we forgot, the post that I was responding to when I first said
that there were jobs available was one that said that people become drug
addicts becuase there are no appropriate jobs. Are those drug addicts
REALLY, by and large laid-off computer programmers and executives?
Naomi
QvaD
>In article <19971115192...@ladder01.news.aol.com> terr...@aol.com (Terry SC2) writes:
>> <<Ilene B "worst job ever- the onion ring room at Mrs. Paul's Frozen Foods">>
>
>> Wow, is that really worse than the Woolworth's lunch counter? (I
>> lasted all of two weeks.) ;)
>
> Mine was microfilming: Lay piece of paper on table. Press button.
>Lay next piece of paper on table. Press button. Repeat exactly
>10,000 times. Change film. Start over.
>
> -Gary
Mine was the summer I worked for an appliance manufacturer
(NON-union) in my home town, after my first year of college. Wages
were good, but the job was assembly-line drudgery - take a part, slap
it onto the frame passing by on the line, shoot some screws in with a
pneumatic drill/driver, grab the next part, ad infinitum. And that
friggin' line *never* stopped unless someone was seriously injured or
parts ran out.
But the absolute *worst* was the day the foreman decided to move
me to the front of the line, where the unfinished oven cavities came
down off their drying hooks from the enameling department. My job was
to take several pieces of raw fiberglass insulation, wrap them around
the cavity and secure them with some sharp-edged pieces of sheet metal
and the ubiquitous air-driven screws.
At this point I should probably mention that the average temp. on
the line was around 90 or so degrees F, and I was wearing contact
lenses, which I would never have done had I known what was in store
that day. Nor was I wearing the long-sleeved shirt most of the other
workers at that station (who knew what to expect) had on. Take raw
insulation, sultry plant conditions, and a profusely-sweating young
man with ultra-sensitive eyes, wearing short sleeves *and* contact
lenses, and you can imagine the result.
By the 10:00 morning break whistle I was itching like a bear three
months into summer with a winter coat, and my eyes were literally
blood-red from all the loose bits of insulation floating about. I
asked the supervisor if I could *please* be excused, or at least be
moved back to my old station. The response? "Aw, it won't kill you."
I'd already taken much crap that summer from other folks in the plant
for being "a college boy," (and this was also back in my extreme
doormat days) so I washed up and stuck it out until lunch before
asking once more if I could be moved since my health was obviously
being adversely affected - same answer, except this time I agreed that
no, indeed, the job would NOT kill me - I simply punched my card and
walked out.
The next 3 summers I worked as a creeler in a carpet mill in
a neighboring town - still hard physical labor, but better pay and
fewer/different health risks. But the ultimate effect of all those
summer jobs was to make me want to NEVER have to go back to
them, so in some ways it was more of an education than my actual
schooling.... }}:->
Brenda Peters
naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
<64hphq$obm$5...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>...
> Brenda Peters (71543...@compuserve.com) wrote:
> > > My local paper has 2-3 pages of want ads every day. In large cities
there
> > > are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
> > > Naomi
> >
> > Oh, please. As someone with a Master's degree who sent out over 100
> > resumes and got only three interviews, Yes, I did try for MOSTLY jobs
that were "beneath" me because > I needed the money.
> The particular TYPE of job you want may be hard to find. The hours you
> prefer may be hard to find. But if you were willing to flip burgers or
> wait tables or punch a cash register 3rd shift at the 7-11 or clean rooms
> in a hotel ... you could get A job.
>
> Naomi
>
Oh, right, asking to be treated like a human being is something that is
just a LITTLE too persnickity. There are an awful lot of jobs which are
demeaning and degrading for ANYONE, that SHOULD be automated so that human
beings don't need to ruin their health or their spirit doing them just
because it's more PROFITABLE that way. I'm unwilling to do some scutwork
jobs, yes. And I also do not think that people should be "punished" for
who they are (minorities, welfare, disability) by being forced to do that
kind of scutwork, either. And I don't think that someone working for
minimum wage OWES me deference or needs to bow and scrape before me to earn
my patronage. I happen to be of the unpopular opinion that everyone
deserves a chance to do productive, creative, useful work (loosely defined
as any productive activity, from sweeping the floor to composing a
symphony) to the best of their ability, and that just ain't the way things
are right now.
Brenda
Banty
>> Wow, is that really worse than the Woolworth's lunch counter? (I
>> lasted all of two weeks.) ;)
>
> Mine was microfilming: Lay piece of paper on table. Press button.
>Lay next piece of paper on table. Press button. Repeat exactly
>10,000 times. Change film. Start over.
>
> -Gary
Sounds like keeping the water glasses filled at Furr's cafeteria.
Do n=1,infinity
Take glass. Scoop ice. Fill water. Place on counter.
Return.
Cheers,
Ba...@aol.com
Tryxxq
>
>I'm afraid the ivory tower naivete (and rhetoric) is rearing its head here.
Don't be too critical, living here in the "People's Republic of Austin" (also
known as "Moscow on the Brazos") has a way of inculcating far-left fantasy
thinking in its residents.
I tried to start a dialogue on this on the listserve at the LBJ School of
Public Affairs at UT, and got flamed royally!
>I not-so-gently suggest that the grad student needs to get out a little
>more often.
>Ilene B "tired of middle-class knee-jerk righteous liberal academics"
You would loooooooove Austin, Ilene!!!!
Tryxxq
>
>Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
>the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
>have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
>minorities, etc
There is a big difference between "eugenics".....selective
breeding/non-breeding based on racial/ethnic criteria.....and efforts at birth
control aimed at those persons displaying destructive behaviors of one sort or
another.
Plus, as we have seen time and again, money for social programs doesn't grow on
trees. Bluntly put.....would you rather see hundreds of millions of dollars
go to subsidize "crack whores" breeding children who will likely have severe
mental and physical problems, and a huge likelihood of a live in extreme
poverty and misery....or see that vast amount of money diverted to help poor
people who AREN'T screwing up themselves, or the rest of society?
Tryxxq
>> Nice try at putting words in someone's mouth. I don't recall that anyone
>> said anything about supporting the sterilization of minorities.
>Right, just the sterilization of "undesirables." Next stop, Auschwitz.
The Nazi activities were primarily aimed at exterminating those who weren't
"pure Aryans," not based on behavioral characteristics (with certain
exceptions).
Used to be in some states, if a man was convicted of three felonies, he would
be castrated. A case called Skinner v. Oklahoma overturned that, because the
litigant faced being "de-nutted" due to three bouncing checks he wrote.
That offense might not warrant sterilization...but I submit that forcible rape,
or a whole other host of crimes DOES warrant sterilization. If nothing else,
might serve as a deterrent to the demographic slice of society that views
criminal behavior as a source of pride and community status.
Also, might make such "bad boys" more tameable in prison, without all that
excess testosterone being produced!! <B-D
Tryxxq
> That said, I *do* think it is possible to lose one's so-called
>"right" to reproduce. (On my really ornery days, I deny that there
>is such a right in the first place; it really oughta be a privilege.)
Hear hear! Or at least something that requires SOME degree of qualification!!
I wonder if a study has ever been done of the inmates of various state
penitentiaries....I would wager that perhaps 90% of them were born to parents
that were woefully unqualified to BE parents!!
>Drug addiction and abusive behavior should be cause for forfeiture
>of that right. (Possibly depending on the drug. My personal jury is
>out on this one, although I tend to lean toward proscribing *all*
>addictions, from caffeine on up, in reproducers.)
My criteria would be:
1) addictions that have been proven to cause severe defects in the children
(would be problematic to implement regarding fetal alcohol syndrome, but still
needs to be done).
2) If the addiction severely impairs the putative parent's ability to function
in society (crack and meth, obvious qualifiers).
Tryxxq
>
>Probably, but I don't see sterilization as a good answer just because
>we can prove it; that's a permanent solution to a possibly temporary
>situation.
a very cost-effective, simple solution.
Plus, given the noted propensity of female crack users to end up bartering the
only thing they have of value (their bodies) for crack, this is probably the
only means to effectively address the problem.
>
>We *could* simply require men who father impoverished children to go
>to work camps until they pay for the kids' support...
Now THAT is a convoluted solution: set up a complicated apparatus to
administer such camps; probably conjuring make-work, as these individuals are
probably low or non-skilled.....
It can be reasonably argued that the onus (for prevention) of pregnancy in this
defective setting should fall on the one who potentially will bear the brunt
of its inconvenience--because reasonably, the males involved will almost never
be able to support the kid.
Think about it....a guy would have to be pretty desperate, or pretty lame, to
do a woman on crack.
Tryxxq
>and so on to address
>> very real daily specific problems. To me, a "progressive" is a liberal
>> with a touch of common sense.
I consider myself "progressive" via that definition. But I am real tired of
seeing poor people who deserve help be screwed by the misdeeds of the
"criminal poor."
>the issue needs to be considered amongst an historical perspective --
particularly
>regarding reproductive rights in the U.S. And that she shouldn't be
>surprised if, for example, the African-American community is not
>exactly thrilled with this idea.
The African-American community has been particularly remiss in addressing the
crack problem, and most other endemic crime problems within its community.
The two closest ethnic groups to Blacks in regards to societal placement are
Hispanics and Native Americans. Although alcohol abuse is very problematic in
both groups (especially Native Americans), it hasn't wrecked anywhere near the
havoc that crack has caused in black communities.
There is a very troubling tendency in AA culture to make excuses for criminal
behavior, to "victimize" the criminal. Extremely self-destructive behavior.
It is common to make excuses for the black crack cocaine epidemic....but you
NEVER see a parallel reaction among whites concerning, say Meth abuse. The
general sentiment in that type of situation is to condemn the criminal and
punish him severely...not to lionize him!!
Scott Eiler
I can't decide between "Fast food hamburger cook" and "Tester for a major
phone company". As a tester I got paid better (slightly, once the unpaid
overtime was accounted for) and yelled at more. As a cook I got dirtier,
but I could relax in the freezer or have "fly hunts" anytime I wasn't busy.
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.ultranet.com/~seiler
"Be careful, too, about farting around your butler. You shouldn't fart around
anyone, really, because they start stammering and stuttering and you never find
out what they were going to say and if you yell at them for stammering, they wet
their pants. But especially not your butler, because if you fart when he's
bringing you your soup, he spills it all over you."
- From "On Governing" by Former Prime Minister Cerebus of Iest, courtesy of Dave
Sim.
Rabbit
Tryxxq wrote:
>
> >However, the point I
> >was trying to make is that why is the woman the news article only
> >interested in paying off a few addicts when she could use her time
> >and resources to find solutions that could benefit a larger group of
> >people?
In many of the cases I've seen, people using their time and resources to
find solutions to benefit larger groups of people usually involve
charities or other groups.
Now you have overhead, (in many cases) salaries, a larger group of
people sharing a small resource, and of course our old friend
bereaucracy. (Tell me, if she went to a government agency or charity
and told them what she wanted to do, it would get done! Never in a
million years.)
Is it better to give $10 to a beggar, or give that $10 to the United Way
to distribute among 1,000 beggars? My money's on the direct-deposit
approach.
People find different ways to help different people. Some do their part
by giving to charities. Some deal directly, as this woman did. Both
types are to be commended.
Sometimes, you just have to save the planet one person at a time.
Rabbit
Livia
sei...@ma.ultranet.com (Scott Eiler) wrote:
>I can't decide between "Fast food hamburger cook" and "Tester for a major
>phone company". As a tester I got paid better (slightly, once the unpaid
>overtime was accounted for) and yelled at more. As a cook I got dirtier,
>but I could relax in the freezer or have "fly hunts" anytime I wasn't busy.
Winchell's Donuts. They never change or clean the topping pans, just
dump in more frosting (or sprinkles, or powdered sugar), so you have
to strain out the chunks every so often. And the oil in the fryer
never gets changed either. And they were way big on "suggestive
selling", which meant you had to push specific items on everyone who
ordered, rather than just asking if they wanted anything else.
After six weeks, I quit and got a job at a nursing home.
E l i s e R a u s c h e n b a c h
> Mine was microfilming: Lay piece of paper on table. Press button.
>Lay next piece of paper on table. Press button. Repeat exactly
>10,000 times. Change film. Start over.
I was a secretary at a plumbing co. in Brighton, MA for a few weeks
while in college. No one knew how to use the new computers; they
expected me to learn how; when I did, they didn't want to give me
credit for having done so; they then expected me to teach them how to
use them but none had the desire or ability to listen or focus for
even five minutes; then they kept trying to make me do bookkeeping (by
hand), something I had never done and was incredibly unqualified for.
To top it all off, the office was in a basement with almost no natural
light. And smelled like plumbers! Joy.
One day, I just decided to not go in. Went to a temp agency after
that. Better pay, better treatment, and no leering sexist idiot
plumbers to deal with.
Elise
Linda Dachtyl
Worst job ever?
1.Teaching jr. high general music, anytime, any place, anywhere for any
amount of money
2. Teaching preschool general music, where the kids have not been
properly "home-trained" in manners, etc...
3. Teaching high school music PERFORMANCE oriented classes where the
guidance department throws tone deaf kids in with excellent music
students just to get their "arts credit"...without any regard for how
bad the group will sound with kids who can't sing.....for heavens sake
this is a choir class.....!!!!..AKA, Mrs Dachtyl can double as
"babysitter".
If all goes well, I may have a college teaching position very
soon.....it's not teaching that I don't like. It is the "authority-less"
surrogate parenting that I never bargained for. What is even worse is
the consequences we are permitted to give mean little or nothing
(detentions/suspensions)....and little teaching gets done in the above
situations....grr.....
Holidays are coming soon, thank goodness.
Linda
Jennifer Morgan
CF wrote:
> I agree 100% Rabbit! What bothers me about people saying things like
> "You could get A job if you're willing to do_____" is the fact that more
> than what you're willing to do is a factor.
>
> For example, when I finish college, there is no way I am flipping
> burgers for minimum wage. Is it because I think I'm too good for that
> job? NOPE - it's because there is no way in hell I could make my
> student loan payments plus live under any kind of roof with that kind of
> job. Plus, I am overqualified for that sort of job. People don't seem
> to realize that it is possible to be overqualified for what are known as
> grunt jobs. Even if you were willing to do the job, those of us with
> any kind of college educations are usually eliminated because we are OQ.
>
> CF
I think the point is that having "A job" is better than having "no job,"
so don't pass on the "A job" if the alternative is to be unemployed
indefinitely. I graduated from grad school, with master's degree and
teaching certificate in hand, with no job and no prospects. I could
have waited around until I got one, and lived off of my parents, I
suppose, but instead, I got "A job" -- I temped with a couple of temp
agencies for four months. It was a very disheartening period in my
life, and I went through a hell of a lot of angst, but it would have
been much worse if I had had *no* income at all. That $5/hour was good
enough to sustain me until I could get a "real job" in place of "A
job." Fortunately, I was able to work almost full-time between the two
agencies, but if I couldn't, I would have gone in for "flipping burgers"
or working retail, or anything that would pay me *something*. I think
that may have been the point of some of the previous posts -- that
rather than complaining about the job market being too narrow for one's
qualifications, one should broaden one's perception of the job market.
Jennifer
--
Please remove "_remove_" in my address if you want to reply.
I've had it with bulk e-mail ads!
Tryxxq
>> If she's an addict, she has a rather greater-than-average probability
>>of selling her body. I don't think most people who do that check into
>>the reproductive status of the buyer.
>
>So give her condoms, and neuter the buyers.
>
>
I would wager that most "crack whores" either get paid for their services in
1) amounts of the desired drug; or
2) Amounts less than $20 per act, if that much.
Plus, the quality clientele they attract probably aren't much for condom use.
As for your second point.....neutering the buyers in this situation would
probably be a great idea. Too bad the sterilization process couldn't include
a suppository that would sterilize all persons that subsequently had sex with
a crack addict? Hey, excellent idea!!!! <B-D
Holly C.
I am also of the group of people that has had so many jobs that I've had
to leave several off my resume. (I also exaggerate how long I was at
some of my jobs, to fill in the gaps!) Obviously I'm good at faking
people out, because I keep getting hired. Of course it doesn't hurt
that the kinds of jobs I'm looking for aren't in the high-paying,
career-track category!
My worst jobs:
1. "Housekeeper"/ staff cleaning person for a large, snooty daycare
center. $5 an hour (this was only three years ago, so minimum wage was
4.25). I had to clean 23 classrooms in 8 hours completely by myself.
This included mopping the vinyl floors in each room, vacuuming the
carpeted areas, spot-cleaning the inside windows, scrubbing the visible
disgusting stuff off the surfaces, cleaning the two bathrooms off of
each classroom, and stacking up the toys or supplies. In addition to
the 23 classrooms, I also had to sweep the sidewalks in the outdoor play
area, pick up trash outside, clean the front offices, and clean the
marble tiles at the entrance *by hand* with Windex and paper towels. If
there were streaks I'd have to do it over!
There was literally no possible way to do all this in eight hours by
myself. But I decided to quit when the daycare director (my boss) told
me I wasn't getting things clean enough. I told her I was working 9
hours or more just to do what I was doing already (and wasn't getting
paid the overtime), she said I should work until it was done
sufficiently. Even if it took me twelve hours a night, I'd still only
get paid for eight! I still see ads all the time that they're hiring
for this position...apparently no one can do it, and the boss doesn't
want to break down and pay two people.
2. Convenience-store clerk at a mom-and-pop store. The owner was a
chronically depressed single guy in his thirties, and he wanted to sell
the business but wouldn't. The other employees were all relatives of
his, and the position I had was the only non-family spot. When I was
hired, I was told it was to be a cashier. Instead, after he trained me
on the register, he said that I would only be a back-up cashier when
things got busy. The rest of the time I would be stocking beer and
scrubbing out the trash cans. (shudder) You can't possibly imagine the
things you find in the trash cans in the parking lot of a convenience
store. I was 5'1 and 100 lbs (no muscle at all!), trying to hoist heavy
barrels of trash over my head into dumpsters and trying to get cases of
40-oz beer bottles down from stacks 6 feet tall. One day I called and
told them I had stomach flu and couldn't come in...they told me to
anyway. After an hour of me constantly running to the bathroom, they
said "You're just not strong enough for this job. You can go home this
time, but you're gonna have to shape up or we'll let you go". I quit
that day.
I can handle tough jobs (I lasted six whole months at McDonald's, which
was hardly fun). But it really amazes me what some employers expect of
people for minimum wage.
Holly
Bryan Lawrence
>
>At a printer's, feeding big stacks of pages into a collating machine.
>Put big stack of paper into hopper. Push button. Put big stack of
>collated pages into box. Repeat for 8 hours. Call temp agency who
>got you job and ask for something else.
>
I did the same thing!! Well, almost. I just stacked the pages into a
machine that automatically fed them into a conveyer belt for assembly.
Usually worked about 3 or 4 stacks of different pages at a time and could
not let the feed stack get empty. Truly one of the worst jobs.
BUT, my WORST ever jobif part time counts was when I was just out of high
school and cleaned up the meat dept. of a local grocery store every night.
Scoop meat trimmings and piles of guts and fat off the floor and shelves
and clean all the utensils on which all the meat is prepared. Man, that was
a BAD job.
-BL
CF
Rabbit wrote:
>
> >
> > The particular TYPE of job you want may be hard to find. The hours you
> > prefer may be hard to find. But if you were willing to flip burgers or
> > wait tables or punch a cash register 3rd shift at the 7-11 or clean rooms
> > in a hotel ... you could get A job.
> >
> > Naomi
>
> when you were employed before ... even if it's just a very small one.
> And of course you'd have to sell any car you owned. Your savings would
> disappear, and next thing you knew, you'd be looking for a basement
> apartment and worrying that one wrong move (a week's worth of illness,
> perhaps) could have you out on the street.
I agree 100% Rabbit! What bothers me about people saying things like
naomi pardue
Distribution:
Brenda Peters (71543...@compuserve.com) wrote:
>
> Oh, right, asking to be treated like a human being is something that is
> just a LITTLE too persnickity. There are an awful lot of jobs which are
> demeaning and degrading for ANYONE, that SHOULD be automated so that human
> beings don't need to ruin their health or their spirit doing them just
> because it's more PROFITABLE that way.
Unfortunately, at the moment the jobs AREN"T automatated, so SOMEONE has
to do them. (And of course, when those jobs ARE automated, they will
simply that there are NO jobs available for people without the education
to do higher level work.
I'm unwilling to do some scutwork
> jobs, yes. And I also do not think that people should be "punished" for
> who they are (minorities, welfare, disability) by being forced to do that
> kind of scutwork, either.
Who's being punished. People, by and large, get jobs that they are
educated for. (Unless there are more people educated for a field than
tehre are jobs.) If Mary dropped out of high school, is she being PUNISHED
by being told that she is only qualified to flip burgers? Should she be
given a high level executive position even though she lacks the skills
for it?
And I don't think that someone working for
> minimum wage OWES me deference or needs to bow and scrape before me to earn
> my patronage.
Neither do I. I treat store clerks and burger flippers with respect.
I happen to be of the unpopular opinion that everyone
> deserves a chance to do productive, creative, useful work (loosely defined
> as any productive activity, from sweeping the floor to composing a
> symphony) to the best of their ability, and that just ain't the way things
> are right now.
Yes, I agree. Sadly, to a large degree it is not possible. (We can only
manage to employ so many computer programmers.) But to the degree that it
IS possible, I think it is being done. Flipping burgers may not be the
most lucrative or creative job, but it is a necessary one.
Naomi
Tryxxq
>has started a personal
>program to pay addicts to get tubals/vasectomies.
> She clearly acknowledges knowing that these people are doing so for the cash
to >get drugs, and feels that preventing more suffering addicted babies is
worth
>it.
More I thought about, this seems a really good idea. To wit:
1) I would venture that the average "crack baby birth," with accompanying
complications, would run well over $60,000 just concerning the delivery and
post-delivery expenses. Of course, since most crack mothers are going to
have that tab picked up by us, the taxpayers, reducing that expense would
have immediate effects.
2) The huge expenses of "crack children" AFTER birth.....because of the
numerous physical and mental consequences of their mothers' drug use....is
likewise overous, and again, predominantly borne by the taxpayers.
3) While a governmental effort to do this type of program would be roundly
attacked and probably vitiated (witness what happened in Kansas a few years
back, when it was suggested that welfare mothers have Norplants or face
reduction of welfare benefits), by having a PRIVATE initiative like this
woman is doing, it is largely immune from such problems.
Seems every woman who would undergo this would save the taxpayers at least a
hundred grand or so.....and for every MAN, probably a much larger amount, as
the demographics involved there would be even more onerous.
4) Of course, since crack use is primarily an inner-city phenomenon, there
would be outcries of racism and genocide levelled at such an initiative.
This could be best addressed by extending the program to methamphetamine
users.....a similarly highly addictive drug, which also has the same effect
on newborns (just not as widespread as crack, nor in populations with as high
an average birthrate).
Since methamphetamine use is the "drug of choice" of redneck/ "white trash"
and is especially prevalent in rural areas due to the methods of manufacture,
this would result in a fairly even spread amongst various racial and ethnic
groups which are involved in this particular type of substance abuse.
Ilene Bilenky
Well, they sure are now. And they sure do.
In article <19971116212...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, try...@aol.com
Tryxxq
>
>Does anyone have any data on the "recovery rate" of crack addicts? Of
> methadone addicts?
^^^^^^^^^
Oops! Sorry Ilene, my bad. I meant METHAMPHETAMINE addicts, not Methadone!!!
Jim Paradis
"Frenchy" <fre...@NoSpam.com> writes:
> 1) Christian TV station intern (Louisville, Ohio).
> 2) Wendy's (Kent, Ohio).
> 3) Telemarketer (Macedonia, Ohio).
> 4) Radio station producer (Torrington, CT).
> 5. Classified advertising manager (Torrington, CT).
> 6. Cable TV ad rep (Bristol, CT).
>
> Needless to say, most of these jobs don't appear on my resume. ;)
And why not? 8-) You just might want to come up with a version of
your resume that *includes* these items. At the very least it'll
get noticed 8-)
A few years back I posted a satirical version of my resume to
misc.jobs... while it was entirely *factual*, it was also
brutally honest while poking fun at the kinds of language typically
seen on resumes, e.g.
Objective:
A thoroughly unchallengng position with minimal performance
requirements and maximum material benefits.
Experience:
6/84-10/96: Thoroughly Insignificant Computer Manufacturer.
I fought the fires while the emperors fiddled and Rome
burned. For this I was rewarded with more fires to fight.
Education:
Let's just say that *someone* has to hold up the bottom
half of the bell curve!
What was really a hoot was that I actually got *calls* after having
posted this! And this was during a time of dizzying downsizing and
tight employment. I guess they figured anyone brassy enough to send
in something like *this* is either totally flipped out or good enough
to get away with it...
Several times I had to remind them to read the date on the message...
--
Jim Paradis j...@jrp.tiac.net http://www.tiac.net/users/jrp/index.html
"It's not procrastination, it's my new Just-In-Time Workload Management System!"
E l i s e R a u s c h e n b a c h
On 16 Nov 1997 20:59:42 GMT, try...@aol.com (Tryxxq) wrote:
When I was young, I resolved not to
> even think of fathering a kid unless I made at least 40 grand a year (in 1988
> dollars).
Tom and I used to talk about not even considering kids until we owned
real estate. Well, we're on house #2 now, and bought house #1 in
1992.
Guess at the time it was just a convenient way to say "No way are we
having kids any time soon...let's find a good marker to put it off
until...".
It wasn't until we'd been homeowners a good long time that the kid
thing really came up for discussion in anything other than a
"maybe...someday...maybe" manner. With the homeowner "excuse" out of
the way, we had to confront it a bit more honestly --- and that's when
the Big Doubts started showing themselves!
And now we're at the point of "No kids...but if we ever change our
minds, there's always foreign adoption, even tho it's expensive".
Looks like that's where we'll stay.
Elise
PS: Had what Pete calls a "Swanky CF" evening tonight --- went out
for an hour or so cross-country ski run (Peterborough NH had 8 inches
of snow in the last two days!) under the full moon (with a headlamp)
with my dogs. Had an entertaining encounter with a beaver, who was
none too pleased that we had discovered him "engineering" in the
moonlight on the banks of the Contoocook!. Got to hear him SLAP his
tail against the water several times to warn my dogs not to come too
close --- it echoed down the river like a shot! Stopped to watch the
moon rise over Temple Mountain. Ahhh, that's better!
When I returned to where my car was parked at the start of the trail,
a P'boro police officer had just pulled up. It was mighty
entertaining, shining MY light in HIS face for a change (until it
occured to me to turn it off!). I asked him if there was a problem
and he said no, absolutely not --- it was just that people saw my car
parked there after dark and thought there might be something wrong or
someone injured in the woods. Nope, I explained...just an xc fanatic
who didn't get her run in during the daylight hours! We talked an
additional 15 or minutes or so about dogs, wildlife, and exercise
physiology.
No complaints here...
8^)
Elise
Ilene Bilenky
No hard data- just years of "mental health" work. People on methadone do
fine- as long as they don't get into other non-heroin drugs (a big "if").
Often, if the addiction is so very psychological, the methadone keeps
people off opiates but the behavior just gets moved to other
drugs/alcohol. (I knew an ex-junkie who thought he was "clean" because he
didn't use needles anymore- but inhaled benzos, alcohol, cocaine, you name
it).
Crack. Very very bad. Very short trip from zero to sixty. The only drug
that seems to routinely sever the sacred bonds of motherhood, that is,
mothers selling their children to pimps, etc. (something that heroin
mothers supposedly still don't largely do). No detox for babies born on
it, in the sense of heroin withdrawal, and lotsa questions about permanent
brain damage in babies.
Get clean, die, go to jail, go insane. Very few options.
Ilene B
In article <19971116210...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, try...@aol.com
E l i s e R a u s c h e n b a c h
On 16 Nov 1997 23:09:52 GMT, npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
>Yes, I agree. Sadly, to a large degree it is not possible. (We can only
>manage to employ so many computer programmers.) But to the degree that it
>IS possible, I think it is being done. Flipping burgers may not be the
>most lucrative or creative job, but it is a necessary one.
>
Reminds me of an interview David Bowie gave to some music trade mag a
long time ago. Something to the effect of "I get to write, perform,
and produce music for a living. Other people have to work in tomato
canning factories. It doesn't seem fair to me. Meanwhile, tho, I
don't ever let myself forget it.".
Elise
>Naomi
naomi pardue
naomi pardue (npa...@indiana.edu) wrote:
>
> Working in a bindery. I spent a week making boxes. Then I spent a week
> taking boxes apart. Then I spent 2 weeks opening a book to page 26 and
> turning it over. (During which we were not allowed to talk to anyone, for
> fear we wouldn't be able to concentrate on this highly complex task.)
Oh, I almost forgot. A close second was the week I spent typing up
several hundred copies of the same post-card. (This was
pre-word-processor.)
Both those jobs were courtesy of a temp agency while I was in college.
Naomi
Ilene Bilenky
In 1974, I got a job at WGBH-TV in Boston without a college degree and
without the sense to kiss ass to get the job. When the interviewer said
"You'll be bored at this job" I said honestly "Well, gotta pay the bills,
right?" (*Now* I'd probably fawn for a job..)
They were most interested in my brief listing of "Other experience
includes restaurants, factories, offices, and groom at the racetrack."
More people asked me about that! I realized years later that such a blue
collar resume was a sheer novelty to the effetes who worked there- I
didn't have a TV and literally didn't know what WGBH was.
Ilene B "long time ago far far away"
Rabbit
> > Think about it....a guy would have to be pretty desperate, or pretty lame, to
> > do a woman on crack.
My friend is a police officer who often gets sent undercover as a
prostitute. She works a street where a number of the women are
crackheads -- stoned, teeth missing, dirty, right out of it. They'll
perform for $10, and as my friend says, there are plenty of guys lined
up with ten-dollar bills for them to do it.
Rabbit
Raydioface
In a message dated 11/17/1997 2:23:09 PM, "Frenchy" wrote:
>4) Radio station producer (Torrington, CT). I never understood the
>"battered wife syndrome" until I met my boss, the station manager here.
>The man was a fruitcake who emotionally and mentally abused his employees,
>and overreacted or underrreacted to everything. <SNIP>
> He reamed me so
>badly I came out of there shaking like a life and damned close to tears,
>but I couldn't go anywhere and cut loose because I had an hour-long
>interview on the air I had to do. Which I did rather well, considering
>that the guests clammed up and answered my questions with as few words as
>possible (I finished the list of questions in ten minutes, and had to wing
>it from there.)
AH yes, the sadistic PD/GM who breaks rule number one in radio: "Don't
upset the talent immediately before he or she goes on air". I can never
understand bosses who like to ream the announcers either right before or
during a shift.....hardly an effective way to get people to produce a good
product. (And face it, when you do radio, the program is a product)
My own worst job was probably working in the Maintenence Agreement
department at Sears. It was the first time I really got a good look at
factory mentality and dead end jobs. My job was to sit there for three
hours a night (It sure seemed longer) and enter purchases in the computer.
For example, if you bought a washer, we'd call up your account and see that
you also had a vacuum, a vcr, and a microwave, and whether you had MAs on
them or not. We'd add the washer to your account, and a few days later,
you'd appear on a lead sheet for the sales folks who would call you and try
to convince you you really needed to spend 300 bucks or whatever to insure
every little thing about your new purchase. It was mind numbing. I hated
it with a passion.....this was after I got out of college and didn't know
what I wanted to do....I think at that point I had three part time jobs.
It was the only job I'd ever worked at where people stood in line to clock
in and out at EXACTLY the right time. BLEAH. It was worse than even fast
food, which while it was bad, still offered more variety than those damn MAs.
Colleen
Trish Connery
I can tell you about the worst "leaving-a-job" story.
I worked for a company for six years, and by far did the best job of
anyone who was ever in my position.
After 6 years I felt I was really getting dull and stagnant. I felt I'd
been with the owners of this company too long. All their little
personality quirks were really starting to grate on my nerves. Plus they
had recently committed what I considered to be very unprofessional acts
against some employees they had terminated (not to mention the manner in
which the employees were terminated). While I never thought they would
turn against me I still felt it was time to leave.
After lining up another job I gave notice. After giving notice, I
counted up what my unused vacation days were for the year. I discovered
I had one unused day left. I asked if I could take my last vacation day
before leaving. Or just move my last day up by one. I put the request to
one of the owners in a meeting in his office. Within a half hour the
other owner came storming into my office, yelling at the top of his
lungs that I was ungrateful, that I was out of line, that I had no right
to even ask this, that he could fire me as easy as picking his nose
(yes, his words), that I was being disrespectful and how dare I. All
this at the top of his lungs, with my office door open, with people
wondering up and down the hall. I was embarrassed, mortified; I felt I
had been stabbed in the back. I left in tears. The next day I went into
his office and told him that I did not deserve such treatment and if he
ever spoke to me again in such a manner I would leave on the spot and
not finish out my time.
But the story gets worse!
As much as these owners had acted like a**holes, I wanted to leave on my
own terms. It wasn't my replacement's fault (who I had to train) and I
didn't want to take anything out on her. I made sure there was a
complete list of all duties and responsibilities, I made sure everything
was left clean and up to date. And yet they would question her at the
end of each day to make sure I wasn't "poisoning" (yes, again their
words) her against them. When I asked for my letter of recommendation,
which I was more than entitled to and deserving of, I was told my letter
would be "held" until after I left to make sure I would answer any
questions my replacement might have. They even wanted my new work number
so they could call me with questions! I told them where to put the
letter, after which it was given to me promptly.
I will never forget how those people treated me or how they made me feel
or how hurt, upset, and betrayed I felt that they could so easily do
that to me.
The upside is I now have a better job, better paying, working for
wonderful people who really value their employees and know how to treat
them right. They actually treat them like....people! What a concept!
--
Trish Connery
Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA
Beth
Worst job ever: Real Estate. Obnoxious buyers, demanding sellers,
stab-you-in-the-back agents, hours of hours working for nothing, hours and
hours of sleepless nights worrying somebody was going to get pissed for
some inane reason and sue. Lasted 18 months. Bleah.