Are RC's Christians?

Sir Bonvolio wrote:So I shouldn't let anyone have even their anniversary off? Birthday's? Child births? Funerals? Some are at university aswell, should I tell them it's tough and they need to come to work?.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:That would be riduculous. If a staff member of mine makes a reasonable request, then of course I'd allow them to do it, I don't really give a toss what it's for. I respect peoples ideologies and lives outside of the workplace, i.e. why I allow the other one to have thursday nights off to socialise. One and the same thing.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:That would be riduculous. If a staff member of mine makes a reasonable request, then of course I'd allow them to do it, I don't really give a toss what it's for. I respect peoples ideologies and lives outside of the workplace, i.e. why I allow the other one to have thursday nights off to socialise. One and the same thing.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Not on zero hour contracts, many staff, limited hours, no standing wage bills etc. If they have time off they lose out, not the company.

Cartoon Head wrote:I posted a link after it.

In this link, it clearly shows the footage to be doctored on purpose.

The link I gave showed what really happened.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:god no, am I mad? I never said anything about paid time off, that would be ridiculous.

If they don't want to work Sundays, whatever, I'd never pay people not to work Sundays, that's madness!

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:That is above and beyond, I agree. It will not fly over here and I would bet the farm that Europe will trash the notion as well. No, I am not worried in the least.

I have no clue about Europe. But can you even imagine them trying to pass a law saying walmart, Food Lion, Kroger, and all other businesses have to close on Sunday because it's the Sabbath here in the states? Imagine them trying to tell people they can't make a dollar on Sunday. Or even worse, trying to pass a law saying the businesses have to close and people can't buy some hamburger when they suddenly decide on Sunday to throw some burgers on the grill. They'll need God to protect them from the violence that ensues when Joe six pack can't get his 12-pack and smokes on Sunday! That aint gonna happen. I don't care how much power people think the pope has. There will be some blood shed over that one.

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:That is above and beyond, I agree. It will not fly over here and I would bet the farm that Europe will trash the notion as well. No, I am not worried in the least.

I have no clue about Europe. But can you even imagine them trying to pass a law saying walmart, Food Lion, Kroger, and all other businesses have to close on Sunday because it's the Sabbath here in the states? Imagine them trying to tell people they can't make a dollar on Sunday. Or even worse, trying to pass a law saying the businesses have to close and people can't buy some hamburger when they suddenly decide on Sunday to throw some burgers on the grill. They'll need God to protect them from the violence that ensues when Joe six pack can't get his 12-pack and smokes on Sunday! That aint gonna happen. I don't care how much power people think the pope has. There will be some blood shed over that one.

Can I get an "AMEN"?

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Not on zero hour contracts, many staff, limited hours, no standing wage bills etc. If they have time off they lose out, not the company.

Ah.

So your are not proposing to pay them for this time off, right?

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Not on zero hour contracts, many staff, limited hours, no standing wage bills etc. If they have time off they lose out, not the company.

Ah.

So your are not proposing to pay them for this time off, right?

Who gets paid for time off? They use to try and get me to clock out to go take a drug test. I never got paid for when I won't at work. What kind of miracle jobs have you had CH?

Cartoon Head wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Not on zero hour contracts, many staff, limited hours, no standing wage bills etc. If they have time off they lose out, not the company.

Ah.

So your are not proposing to pay them for this time off, right?

Who gets paid for time off? They use to try and get me to clock out to go take a drug test. I never got paid for when I won't at work. What kind of miracle jobs have you had CH?

Well, there is sick pay for a start.

Then there is maternity pay.

Shall I go on....

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Not on zero hour contracts, many staff, limited hours, no standing wage bills etc. If they have time off they lose out, not the company.

Ah.

So your are not proposing to pay them for this time off, right?

Who gets paid for time off? They use to try and get me to clock out to go take a drug test. I never got paid for when I won't at work. What kind of miracle jobs have you had CH?

Well, there is sick pay for a start.

Then there is maternity pay.

Shall I go on....

Only at jobs that provide that benifit. It's not required here in the US to pay for such things, they just have to give the time off and the employee can't lose their job.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Not on zero hour contracts, many staff, limited hours, no standing wage bills etc. If they have time off they lose out, not the company.

Ah.

So your are not proposing to pay them for this time off, right?

Who gets paid for time off? They use to try and get me to clock out to go take a drug test. I never got paid for when I won't at work. What kind of miracle jobs have you had CH?

Well, there is sick pay for a start.

Then there is maternity pay.

Shall I go on....

Only at jobs that provide that benifit. It's not required here in the US to pay for such things, they just have to give the time off and the employee can't lose their job.

One feels that the alturism that the benfit state was created on is now being taken the piss of a tad...

CarolinaHound wrote:I think if you're sick or going to have a baby, then you should be allowed the time to recuperate without out fear of losing your job. If you can be lucky enough to find an employer that can work around your religious requirements fine. But you shouldn't be paid for work not done unless you've purchased a disability plan or something similar. But if one applies for a job in which working on ones sabbath is required and you tell them you can't work that day, and they should have every right not to hire you because you can't do the work they require. It's not prejudice against anyone's religion, it's simply that you can't do the job they are hiring for.

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:That is above and beyond, I agree. It will not fly over here and I would bet the farm that Europe will trash the notion as well. No, I am not worried in the least.

I have no clue about Europe. But can you even imagine them trying to pass a law saying walmart, Food Lion, Kroger, and all other businesses have to close on Sunday because it's the Sabbath here in the states? Imagine them trying to tell people they can't make a dollar on Sunday. Or even worse, trying to pass a law saying the businesses have to close and people can't buy some hamburger when they suddenly decide on Sunday to throw some burgers on the grill. They'll need God to protect them from the violence that ensues when Joe six pack can't get his 12-pack and smokes on Sunday! That aint gonna happen. I don't care how much power people think the pope has. There will be some blood shed over that one.

Can I get an "AMEN"?

AMEN

CarolinaHound wrote:I think if you're sick or going to have a baby, then you should be allowed the time to recuperate without out fear of losing your job. If you can be lucky enough to find an employer that can work around your religious requirements fine. But you shouldn't be paid for work not done unless you've purchased a disability plan or something similar. But if one applies for a job in which working on ones sabbath is required and you tell them you can't work that day, and they should have every right not to hire you because you can't do the work they require. It's not prejudice against anyone's religion, it's simply that you can't do the job they are hiring for.

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Back in the day, literally nothing would open here on a Sunday.

Now everything is open Sunday, and why not?

It is just another day of the week.

If someone doesn't want to do anything on Sunday's, as it is part of their faith, then that is fine, don't do anything. But no employer should have to make a special case, for example.

If that employee was on a rota, then he would have to take his turn at Sunday, along with everyone else.

Surely that is intolerant to other peoples beliefs?

The two Christians that I have working for me that never work Sundays, I, and the rest of my staff have absolutly no qualms about this...

Same as another of my staff goes out on a Thursday so is unavailable for those shits.

Surely people are allowed to do what they want?

Yes, they can do what they want, I have already conceded that. So long as it is not on the time of their employer. Why should an exception be made for them? That is an absolute bias?

Equally, if employers are implored to accept that, then so too must they accept other requests, that may come from any other religion, no matter how small. Otherwise that would be a bias also.

Pretty soon we would have employers running around, pandering to all these individual demands, and forgetting what they are there to do - make a profit, remain in business. Problem solved, no more need to work a Sunday.

Therefore, in order that business run smoothly, we should not engage in such practice at all.

That is the fairest thing.

Investing time and helping your employees out is well known to increase their job satisfaction, work rate, commitment, etc. So I don't think that allowing them to have time off for their religion, night out with their mates, etc. is bad thing at all.

Also, I fear you are twisting some of the messages in the bible to tailor your own arguments.

Huh?

I am not doing anything of the sort.

I am saying that if I had a company, and there were employees there who had to take it in turns to do a given day, then I would expect everyone to pitch in.

Otherwise, where do you want to take this?

If you had employees whose faith determined that they take two weeks off a month, would you be happy with that?

If you had employees who took time off to celebrate Apollo or Zeus, would you be happy with that?

Well, even if you were, alas, you would not be in business long, as you would have no staff!

That would be riduculous. If a staff member of mine makes a reasonable request, then of course I'd allow them to do it, I don't really give a toss what it's for. I respect peoples ideologies and lives outside of the workplace, i.e. why I allow the other one to have thursday nights off to socialise. One and the same thing.

So.

Would you pander to the request of a pagan, someone that believed in Zeus, Apollo, etc?

Imo, either you have to accomodate all or none.

Are you saying you would choose some over others?

Isn't that biased?

Americanadian wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:That is above and beyond, I agree. It will not fly over here and I would bet the farm that Europe will trash the notion as well. No, I am not worried in the least.

I have no clue about Europe. But can you even imagine them trying to pass a law saying walmart, Food Lion, Kroger, and all other businesses have to close on Sunday because it's the Sabbath here in the states? Imagine them trying to tell people they can't make a dollar on Sunday. Or even worse, trying to pass a law saying the businesses have to close and people can't buy some hamburger when they suddenly decide on Sunday to throw some burgers on the grill. They'll need God to protect them from the violence that ensues when Joe six pack can't get his 12-pack and smokes on Sunday! That aint gonna happen. I don't care how much power people think the pope has. There will be some blood shed over that one.

Can I get an "AMEN"?

AMEN

I second that, and I'll hold you guys to it when the time comes. I'll supply the ammo if I'm not already dead.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:So I shouldn't let anyone have even their anniversary off? Birthday's? Child births? Funerals? Some are at university aswell, should I tell them it's tough and they need to come to work?

Interesting to see how people would act in power, I try to be fair to keep everyone happy. So someone needing a religious day off is no different to someone going out with their friends once a week. I don't really care why they want it off. All my staff are on 0-hour contracts, so if one doesn't work another will, and they all work very hard because of the freedoms I grant and the flexibility I allow.

CarolinaHound wrote:What do you peeps think about getting people on the dole to do 'unpaid' community work, i.e. painting over graffitti, cleaning parks, etc. in order to earn their dole money?

Anti-Thesisofreason wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:So I shouldn't let anyone have even their anniversary off? Birthday's? Child births? Funerals? Some are at university aswell, should I tell them it's tough and they need to come to work?

Interesting to see how people would act in power, I try to be fair to keep everyone happy. So someone needing a religious day off is no different to someone going out with their friends once a week. I don't really care why they want it off. All my staff are on 0-hour contracts, so if one doesn't work another will, and they all work very hard because of the freedoms I grant and the flexibility I allow.

I don't think an employer is allowed to ask why a person wants time off, are they?
(At least in the US)

HotParadox wrote:

Anti-Thesisofreason wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:So I shouldn't let anyone have even their anniversary off? Birthday's? Child births? Funerals? Some are at university aswell, should I tell them it's tough and they need to come to work?

Interesting to see how people would act in power, I try to be fair to keep everyone happy. So someone needing a religious day off is no different to someone going out with their friends once a week. I don't really care why they want it off. All my staff are on 0-hour contracts, so if one doesn't work another will, and they all work very hard because of the freedoms I grant and the flexibility I allow.

I don't think an employer is allowed to ask why a person wants time off, are they?
(At least in the US)

I've worked for corporate and private American companies in many different venues for years and to date most religious practices and all days of worship for all faiths are allowed for employees by employers. That has been my experience.

This article is from America.gov and might clear up some question; go to the link for the full article:

http://www.america.gov/st/ washfile-english/2007/November/20071128173019xlrennef0.1781427.html

***************

28 November 2007

Religion in the Workplace Is Diversity Issue for U.S. Companies
Many firms seek guidance in accommodating employees’ religious practices

By Louise Fenner
Staff Writer

Washington -- American companies are looking for ways to deal with a
diversity issue they increasingly face: the need to accommodate
workers’ various religious beliefs and practices.
“A lot of companies haven’t figured out what to do, but they know they need to do
something,” says David Miller, executive director of Yale University’s
Center for Faith and Culture.
Miller, who heads the center’s
Ethics and Spirituality in the Workplace program, said there is “a huge
appetite” in corporate America for guidance on handling religious
diversity issues.
Increased immigration by Muslims, Hindus,
Buddhists and other groups is creating a more religiously diverse work
force. These employees’ spiritual beliefs and practices must be
accommodated in the workplace -- unless it would impose an undue burden
on the employer -- according to U.S. law. But that is not the only
reason employers find themselves dealing with religious issues, Miller
said.
“Faith at work is a bona fide social movement,” he
said. For many employees, faith is a resource for ethical guidance.
It can help people find meaning and purpose in their work, or help them
“stay anchored and keep their sanity” in a difficult job situation,
Miller said. People want to bring their whole selves to work, and for
many that includes their faith.
Furthermore, in a global marketplace, respecting religious differences helps attract and retain
talented employees and enables companies to reach out to a larger
customer base.
“This is a very powerful, growing trend,” says
Georgette Bennett, president of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious
Understanding. “When we first started working on this issue, everybody
said the religious dimension of diversity is a non-issue. But now if
you go to meetings that deal with diversity, religion is a big item on
the agenda.”
Both Bennett and Miller advise companies on how
to equitably accommodate employees’ spiritual practices. “Our research
found that the mere existence of a written policy [on religious
expression in the workplace] can help reduce the perception of bias,”
Bennett said. Religion is usually cited in workplace
anti-discrimination policies, but only 4 percent of companies have
specific policies on religion, she said.
They both reject the
term “tolerance” when discussing religion in the workplace. “It is
patronizing. We’re not about tolerance, we’re about mutual respect and
understanding,” Bennett said.
“Tolerance is a word that is inadequate, it has outworn its welcome,” said Miller, the author of God at Work: The History and Promise of the Faith at Work Movement. “Tolerance is a minimum threshold. To me, mutual respect is the name of the game.”
Issues that can require accommodation, Bennett said, are the wearing of
religiously significant attire such as hijabs (headscarves worn by
Muslim women), crosses or yarmulkes; taking time off for religious
observance; and having facilities for prayer breaks and meditation.
(See “Muslim Employees Find ‘Welcome’ Sign in U.S. Companies.”)
Some companies hire chaplains to counsel employees facing personal or
professional problems. Tyson Foods, for example, has some 120 chaplains
at its food production plants and offices in Springdale, Arkansas.
Another approach is religion-based employee networking groups, also called
religious affinity groups. Although many companies fear that such
groups could be divisive, Bennett said, “a number of companies are
doing affinity groups very successfully, such as American Express,
Fannie Mae and IBM.” Another is Texas Instruments, where employees
started Christian and Muslim groups that have held joint panel
discussions. (See “Religion-Based Employee Groups Enhance Culture of Inclusion.”)
“When it works well,” said Miller, “the groups come together and share and
have education seminars so other people can learn not to be afraid and
learn about traditions that are different from their own.”
Bennett said many companies, even those that do not sanction religious affinity
groups, “are starting to do learning sessions. When you create a safe
space where employees can discuss the issues, it’s extraordinary what
happens.”
A few years ago, the Tanenbaum Center helped put
together a panel at General Motors (GM) consisting of individuals who
were members of different religions, she said. (GM has no
religion-based affinity groups.) Panel participants discussed
what they value about their beliefs, how those beliefs have been
stereotyped and how that affected them, and how their beliefs affect
their work life, said Bennett.
“When that session was finished, there was such an extraordinary response from the employees,”
she said. “Those who were members of minority religions here [in the
United States] said they were so grateful because they finally had an
opportunity to explain their beliefs and their practices, and those who
were members of what are majority religions here, namely Christians and
Jews, were so grateful because they said, ‘Finally, we understand -- we
just didn’t know what all this was about before.’
“And there was really tremendous good feeling in that packed room,” Bennett said.
For more information, see the Web sites of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding and the Yale Center for Faith and Culture.
See Diversity-At Work.

Old Timer wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Anti-Thesisofreason wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:So I shouldn't let anyone have even their anniversary off? Birthday's? Child births? Funerals? Some are at university aswell, should I tell them it's tough and they need to come to work?

Interesting to see how people would act in power, I try to be fair to keep everyone happy. So someone needing a religious day off is no different to someone going out with their friends once a week. I don't really care why they want it off. All my staff are on 0-hour contracts, so if one doesn't work another will, and they all work very hard because of the freedoms I grant and the flexibility I allow.

I don't think an employer is allowed to ask why a person wants time off, are they?
(At least in the US)

I've worked for corporate and private American companies in many different venues for years and to date most religious practices and all days of worship for all faiths are allowed for employees by employers. That has been my experience.

This article is from America.gov and might clear up some question; go to the link for the full article:

http://www.america.gov/st/ washfile-english/2007/November/20071128173019xlrennef0.1781427.html

***************

28 November 2007

Religion in the Workplace Is Diversity Issue for U.S. Companies
Many firms seek guidance in accommodating employees’ religious practices

By Louise Fenner
Staff Writer

Washington -- American companies are looking for ways to deal with a
diversity issue they increasingly face: the need to accommodate
workers’ various religious beliefs and practices.
“A lot of companies haven’t figured out what to do, but they know they need to do
something,” says David Miller, executive director of Yale University’s
Center for Faith and Culture.
Miller, who heads the center’s
Ethics and Spirituality in the Workplace program, said there is “a huge
appetite” in corporate America for guidance on handling religious
diversity issues.
Increased immigration by Muslims, Hindus,
Buddhists and other groups is creating a more religiously diverse work
force. These employees’ spiritual beliefs and practices must be
accommodated in the workplace -- unless it would impose an undue burden
on the employer -- according to U.S. law. But that is not the only
reason employers find themselves dealing with religious issues, Miller
said.
“Faith at work is a bona fide social movement,” he
said. For many employees, faith is a resource for ethical guidance.
It can help people find meaning and purpose in their work, or help them
“stay anchored and keep their sanity” in a difficult job situation,
Miller said. People want to bring their whole selves to work, and for
many that includes their faith.
Furthermore, in a global marketplace, respecting religious differences helps attract and retain
talented employees and enables companies to reach out to a larger
customer base.
“This is a very powerful, growing trend,” says
Georgette Bennett, president of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious
Understanding. “When we first started working on this issue, everybody
said the religious dimension of diversity is a non-issue. But now if
you go to meetings that deal with diversity, religion is a big item on
the agenda.”
Both Bennett and Miller advise companies on how
to equitably accommodate employees’ spiritual practices. “Our research
found that the mere existence of a written policy [on religious
expression in the workplace] can help reduce the perception of bias,”
Bennett said. Religion is usually cited in workplace
anti-discrimination policies, but only 4 percent of companies have
specific policies on religion, she said.
They both reject the
term “tolerance” when discussing religion in the workplace. “It is
patronizing. We’re not about tolerance, we’re about mutual respect and
understanding,” Bennett said.
“Tolerance is a word that is inadequate, it has outworn its welcome,” said Miller, the author of God at Work: The History and Promise of the Faith at Work Movement. “Tolerance is a minimum threshold. To me, mutual respect is the name of the game.”
Issues that can require accommodation, Bennett said, are the wearing of
religiously significant attire such as hijabs (headscarves worn by
Muslim women), crosses or yarmulkes; taking time off for religious
observance; and having facilities for prayer breaks and meditation.
(See “Muslim Employees Find ‘Welcome’ Sign in U.S. Companies.”)
Some companies hire chaplains to counsel employees facing personal or
professional problems. Tyson Foods, for example, has some 120 chaplains
at its food production plants and offices in Springdale, Arkansas.
Another approach is religion-based employee networking groups, also called
religious affinity groups. Although many companies fear that such
groups could be divisive, Bennett said, “a number of companies are
doing affinity groups very successfully, such as American Express,
Fannie Mae and IBM.” Another is Texas Instruments, where employees
started Christian and Muslim groups that have held joint panel
discussions. (See “Religion-Based Employee Groups Enhance Culture of Inclusion.”)
“When it works well,” said Miller, “the groups come together and share and
have education seminars so other people can learn not to be afraid and
learn about traditions that are different from their own.”
Bennett said many companies, even those that do not sanction religious affinity
groups, “are starting to do learning sessions. When you create a safe
space where employees can discuss the issues, it’s extraordinary what
happens.”
A few years ago, the Tanenbaum Center helped put
together a panel at General Motors (GM) consisting of individuals who
were members of different religions, she said. (GM has no
religion-based affinity groups.) Panel participants discussed
what they value about their beliefs, how those beliefs have been
stereotyped and how that affected them, and how their beliefs affect
their work life, said Bennett.
“When that session was finished, there was such an extraordinary response from the employees,”
she said. “Those who were members of minority religions here [in the
United States] said they were so grateful because they finally had an
opportunity to explain their beliefs and their practices, and those who
were members of what are majority religions here, namely Christians and
Jews, were so grateful because they said, ‘Finally, we understand -- we
just didn’t know what all this was about before.’
“And there was really tremendous good feeling in that packed room,” Bennett said.
For more information, see the Web sites of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding and the Yale Center for Faith and Culture.
See Diversity-At Work.

Thee is one lesson I have learned from being in charge of several groups in various jobs that I have had in my lifetime and that is, for someone to be a sucessful supervisor one must be the kind of boss that one would like to have, and to be both fair and just as you would expect from your boss while still being able to satisfy the rules and regulations of the company that employes you.

Anti-thesisofreason wrote:I don't think an employer is allowed to ask why a person wants time off, are they?
(At least in the US)

Anti-Thesisofreason wrote:[quote="Sir Bonvolio]

Yes, that is precisely what I had in mind. Seems almost common sense to me. Especially people who have a long history of unemployment, making them work for their dole and helping make them more employable by teachiing them skills would work in most cases? Or am I being too rose tinted?

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Anti-Thesisofreason wrote:[quote="Sir Bonvolio]

Yes, that is precisely what I had in mind. Seems almost common sense to me. Especially people who have a long history of unemployment, making them work for their dole and helping make them more employable by teachiing them skills would work in most cases? Or am I being too rose tinted?

My wife works for a not for profit that works with people with substance abuse and on welfare. They provide counciling programs and job training programs to help them get on their feet and become a part of society again. I'm not sure what their success rate is but their trying and many of the people who are going through the program seem to appreciate it.

But as far as I'm aware the program is voluntary.

Old Timer wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Anti-Thesisofreason wrote:[quote="Sir Bonvolio]

Yes, that is precisely what I had in mind. Seems almost common sense to me. Especially people who have a long history of unemployment, making them work for their dole and helping make them more employable by teachiing them skills would work in most cases? Or am I being too rose tinted?

My wife works for a not for profit that works with people with substance abuse and on welfare. They provide counciling programs and job training programs to help them get on their feet and become a part of society again. I'm not sure what their success rate is but their trying and many of the people who are going through the program seem to appreciate it.

But as far as I'm aware the program is voluntary.

There are far too many charity organisations that should be funded. It alaways alarms me that the RNLI is voluntary and supported by donations.

Does it only work because it's voluntary? If it were compulsary, people may resent it.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Anti-Thesisofreason wrote:[quote="Sir Bonvolio]

Yes, that is precisely what I had in mind. Seems almost common sense to me. Especially people who have a long history of unemployment, making them work for their dole and helping make them more employable by teachiing them skills would work in most cases? Or am I being too rose tinted?

My wife works for a not for profit that works with people with substance abuse and on welfare. They provide counciling programs and job training programs to help them get on their feet and become a part of society again. I'm not sure what their success rate is but their trying and many of the people who are going through the program seem to appreciate it.

But as far as I'm aware the program is voluntary.

There are far too many charity organisations that should be funded. It alaways alarms me that the RNLI is voluntary and supported by donations.

Does it only work because it's voluntary? If it were compulsary, people may resent it.

If you ask someone they may help, but if you demand it they will refuse.

Old Timer wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Anti-Thesisofreason wrote:[quote="Sir Bonvolio]

Yes, that is precisely what I had in mind. Seems almost common sense to me. Especially people who have a long history of unemployment, making them work for their dole and helping make them more employable by teachiing them skills would work in most cases? Or am I being too rose tinted?

My wife works for a not for profit that works with people with substance abuse and on welfare. They provide counciling programs and job training programs to help them get on their feet and become a part of society again. I'm not sure what their success rate is but their trying and many of the people who are going through the program seem to appreciate it.

But as far as I'm aware the program is voluntary.

There are far too many charity organisations that should be funded. It alaways alarms me that the RNLI is voluntary and supported by donations.

Does it only work because it's voluntary? If it were compulsary, people may resent it.

If you ask someone they may help, but if you demand it they will refuse.

With all of the other emergency services government run in the UK, it just always shocks me that an island with a 'colourful' maritime history would care so little for safeguarding the sea going folk.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Anti-Thesisofreason wrote:[quote="Sir Bonvolio]

Yes, that is precisely what I had in mind. Seems almost common sense to me. Especially people who have a long history of unemployment, making them work for their dole and helping make them more employable by teachiing them skills would work in most cases? Or am I being too rose tinted?

My wife works for a not for profit that works with people with substance abuse and on welfare. They provide counciling programs and job training programs to help them get on their feet and become a part of society again. I'm not sure what their success rate is but their trying and many of the people who are going through the program seem to appreciate it.

But as far as I'm aware the program is voluntary.

There are far too many charity organisations that should be funded. It alaways alarms me that the RNLI is voluntary and supported by donations.

Does it only work because it's voluntary? If it were compulsary, people may resent it.

If you ask someone they may help, but if you demand it they will refuse.

With all of the other emergency services government run in the UK, it just always shocks me that an island with a 'colourful' maritime history would care so little for safeguarding the sea going folk.

Could it be that the needs of many far outweigh the needs of a few?

Old Timer wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Anti-Thesisofreason wrote:[quote="Sir Bonvolio]

Yes, that is precisely what I had in mind. Seems almost common sense to me. Especially people who have a long history of unemployment, making them work for their dole and helping make them more employable by teachiing them skills would work in most cases? Or am I being too rose tinted?

My wife works for a not for profit that works with people with substance abuse and on welfare. They provide counciling programs and job training programs to help them get on their feet and become a part of society again. I'm not sure what their success rate is but their trying and many of the people who are going through the program seem to appreciate it.

But as far as I'm aware the program is voluntary.

There are far too many charity organisations that should be funded. It alaways alarms me that the RNLI is voluntary and supported by donations.

Does it only work because it's voluntary? If it were compulsary, people may resent it.

If you ask someone they may help, but if you demand it they will refuse.

With all of the other emergency services government run in the UK, it just always shocks me that an island with a 'colourful' maritime history would care so little for safeguarding the sea going folk.

Could it be that the needs of many far outweigh the needs of a few?

These days I'd agree, what with air travel being easier, it just perplexes me that it was never taken that seriously. We live on a tiny island...

Also, the RSPCA was founded 50 years before the NSPCC!!!!