“People do not want to do this work”

[Abbey Marie]

Economics aside, I don’t know how anyone can stand to do that work. All that fear, blood and pain, and stench and mess. I often feel that I am not meant for this planet. As someone posted elsewhere, I believe I too am an empath. Haven’t eaten most meats in 20 years because of it.

[Noir]

Economics aside, I don’t know how anyone can stand to do that work. All that fear, blood and pain, and stench and mess. I often feel that I am not meant for this planet. As someone posted elsewhere, I believe I too am an empath. Haven’t eaten most meats in 20 years because of it.

Same, and I think that’s a growing sentiment (as acknowledged by the speaker in the OP) it’s just not pleasant physically or mentally to be doing this kind of work.

Kinda linked - I once knew a guy who’s job was to go into a slaughterhouse after hours to power wash and hose down the equipment, he said the smell of stale blood in the air alone was enough to make in start seeking new employment immediately :/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Same, and I think that’s a growing sentiment (as acknowledged by the speaker in the OP) it’s just not pleasant physically or mentally to be doing this kind of work.

Kinda linked - I once knew a guy who’s job was to go into a slaughterhouse after hours to power wash and hose down the equipment, he said the smell of stale blood in the air alone was enough to make in start seeking new employment immediately :/

There have always been jobs that were very unpleasant to do. Could it be that the government monies given to these people refusing to do such unpleasant work be a huge factor?
Look, a man will do what he has to do in order to feed and support his family. Every damn job can not be roses and perfume , two hour lunches, at super high pay!
So they refuse--but are they otherwise being supported by those damn government?
Are they refusing and starving?
Or should they get a hundred dollars an hour because the job is unpleasant?
Hell, I've had several jobs that were unpleasant, but life and necessity wins out if one is a decent and responsible person.
Thus, I view those saying no to the job as having other avenues of revenue-- and likely by way of government freebies.
Of course you'd never even think of that, would you?-- -TYR

[Noir]

There have always been jobs that were very unpleasant to do. Could it be that the government monies given to these people refusing to do such unpleasant work be a huge factor?
Look, a man will do what he has to do in order to feed and support his family. Every damn job can not be roses and perfume , two hour lunches, at super high pay!
So they refuse--but are they otherwise being supported by those damn government?
Are they refusing and starving?
Or should they get a hundred dollars an hour because the job is unpleasant?
Hell, I've had several jobs that were unpleasant, but life and necessity wins out if one is a decent and responsible person.
Thus, I view those saying no to the job as having other avenues of revenue-- and likely by way of government freebies.
Of course you'd never even think of that, would you?-- -TYR

Or maybe there are just other jobs, and when presented with those other jobs the one that requires killing animals loses out, even if they do end up getting paid less than they would if they were a slaughterhouse worker.

[CSM]

Or maybe there are just other jobs, and when presented with those other jobs the one that requires killing animals loses out, even if they do end up getting paid less than they would if they were a slaughterhouse worker.

Plenty of folks around that don't want to pick vegetables either... just sayin

[Noir]

Plenty of folks around that don't want to pick vegetables either... just sayin

True, but not for the same reasons, and I would think the number of people who wouldn’t work in a slaughterhouse would be higher than those who wouldn’t want to pick vegetables, though there would likely be a sizeable overlap between the two groups.

[CSM]

True, but not for the same reasons, and I would think the number of people who wouldn’t work in a slaughterhouse would be higher than those who wouldn’t want to pick vegetables, though there would likely be a sizeable overlap between the two groups.

Agreed. I wouldn't want to do any sort of surgery either but prepping game I have taken doesn't bother me. I worked in a tannery as a kid; barely a step up from slaughter house work. Money was darn good for those days.

[Abbey Marie]

True, but not for the same reasons, and I would think the number of people who wouldn’t work in a slaughterhouse would be higher than those who wouldn’t want to pick vegetables, though there would likely be a sizeable overlap between the two groups.

I agree. There are many reasons one doesn’t want to work a particular job. The slaughterhouse has the unusual added reason that the gross things I posted above are a huge part of your day. On top of any of the usual negatives that apply to farming, like being physically difficult and possibly exposed to bad weather.

[Gunny]

I agree. There are many reasons one doesn’t want to work a particular job. The slaughterhouse has the unusual added reason that the gross things I posted above are a huge part of your day. On top of any of the usual negatives that apply to farming, like being physically difficult and possibly exposed to bad weather.

You know what's gross? Working in restaurants. They are disgusting. Always dealing with someone else's leftovers and washing their dishes. The level of disgusting some people reach is beyond explanation.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Or maybe there are just other jobs, and when presented with those other jobs the one that requires killing animals loses out, even if they do end up getting paid less than they would if they were a slaughterhouse worker.

If so. well there you have it. Choices made-- so what is the beef--if it is not about low pay or bad working conditions.
Yet you completely avoided responding to my inquiry about government freebies being a very likely factor(freebies the ffing muslim immigrants love to leech onto)-after all it is Europe we are speaking about, right?
Avoidance 101, a liberal tactic.... -Tyr

http://acdemocracy.org/muslim-immigr...cial-benefits/

Muslim Immigrants Draining European Social Benefits*

By Leslie Lebl
Friday, March 27th, 2015 @ 8:17PM

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Left: European Muslims – The more wives the more benefits

An estimated 40% of Muslim youth in France and 50% in Germany are unemployed but far from destitute. Rather, they receive a wide range of social benefits. [2] For example, an estimated 40% of welfare outlays in Denmark go to the 5% of the population that is Muslim. [3] According to Otto Schily, former German interior minister, speaking of immigrants in general: “Seventy percent of the newcomers [since 2002] land on welfare the day of their arrival.” [4] In Sweden, perhaps the most acute case, immigrants are estimated at 1.5 million out of 10 million people; immigration is estimated to cost almost $14 billion per year. [5]

These high levels of welfare are accompanied by high levels of unemployment. Nor has this situation improved; rather, it is deteriorating. According to analyst Christopher Caldwell: “In the early 1970s, 2 million of the 3 million foreigners in Germany were in the labor force; by the turn of this century, 2 million of 7.5 million were.” [6] Similar stories abound in other West European countries.

Large numbers of people may be receiving unemployment, but that is not their only form of income. The money for the designer sneakers sported by idle youth comes, in fact, from drug deals and fenced goods as well as from welfare payments. But the symbolism of welfare payments affects not only disgruntled taxpayers but also the youth themselves. Some Muslims interpret the payment of social benefits as a form of jiziya, the poll tax traditionally paid in Islamic societies by non-Muslim peoples as a sign of their submission to Islamic rule. In other words, not only are the social benefits interpreted as a right due to Muslim recipients, but they reflect the higher, dominant position of the latter which is embedded in sharia. [7] In fact, a minority consider draining the government’s coffers to be a contribution to jihad. [8]

Nor are such payments restricted to the relatively disadvantaged. European governments have begun to move against prominent individuals engaged in advancing the Islamist cause – yet even those individuals continue to receive their social benefits. For example, prominent Islamist imams like Abu Qatada collect social benefits from the UK government while fighting deportation. [9] And when Belgian authorities finally arrested internet jihadist Malika El Aroud, she was still getting $1,100 per month in unemployment benefits. [10] The family of “Jihadi John,” the university-educated British ISIS member famed for his beheadings of Western hostages, received benefits for over 20 years. [11]

The preference for universalizing what the EU offers to all residents, regardless of nationality, also shapes how EU central institutions have dealt with the issue of social benefits extended to immigrants. The topic has been more obscure, as for decades it has advanced primarily through cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The CJEU is the least noted but perhaps the most important force promoting the EU ever since its 1964 decision that EC law must take primacy over national law. [12] (The EC was the EU’s predecessor organization.) The CJEU moves cautiously to avoid arousing the opposition of national governments, but it too is dedicated to advancing the cause of European integration. As a group of scholars has put it: “court cases which might make the issue salient to the public will take time to work their way through the European judicial system. This time lag has been identified as a key causal mechanism by which the European Union gains ‘creeping sovereignty’ under the radar of oblivious national governments.” [13]

The CJEU based its efforts on a treaty provision requiring that men and women receive “equal pay for equal work.” [14] In its jurisprudence, the CJEU was doing more than simply ensuring that foreigners received fair and equitable treatment; it was in fact watering down the distinctions between them and EU citizens. According to EU scholar Joanna Apap:

“The CJEU, in seeing allegiance to the state and a corresponding reciprocity of rights and duties as the foundation of nationality, has been able to penetrate the wall of nationality and identify a special relationship of allegiance and reciprocity to define what is the limit in respect to which nationality, as a condition of access to rights is acceptable.” [15]

Thus, the CJEU, like the Commission, has sought for years to blur the distinction between EU citizens and foreigners, working diligently to expand the social benefits that today underpin Muslim ghettoes and “lawless zones.”

While stealth may have its bureaucratic advantages, it also has its drawbacks, most prominently its contribution to the EU’s much-discussed democratic deficit. The perception of generous social benefits paid to individuals who clearly do not feel they owe anything to the country in question fuels resentment and opposition to these payments. While national governments also bear responsibility for this situation, EU support for these benefits, when coupled with arguments in favor of further Muslim immigration to support ageing ethnic European populations, puts EU policy directly at odds with much of European public opinion.

Nor is this situation likely to change. Article 153(g) of the Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force in 2009, gives the EU a role in determining the “conditions of employment for third-country nationals legally residing in Union territory.” In addition, Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which entered into force along with the Lisbon Treaty, states that foreigners legally residing within the European Union are “entitled to social security benefits and social advantages in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices.” [16] Those legal parameters will likely encourage the EU to continue to focus on expanding these benefits.

And, if necessary, the Commission will obfuscate. European Commissioner Malmström, responding to a question from the European Parliament, [17] sought to refute the charge that Muslim immigrants were a burden rather than a benefit to EU economies. [18] To do so, she cited a report stating that, in the aggregate, migrants improved the demographic balance of younger versus older people, and boosted the EU’s GDP. To the degree that they received higher social benefits, this was correlated with th.......

more at the link ..

[Noir]

If so. well there you have it. Choices made-- so what is the beef--if it is not about low pay or bad working conditions.

No beef, literally (:

Yet you completely avoided responding to my inquiry about government freebies being a very likely factor(freebies the ffing muslim immigrants love to leech onto)-after all it is Europe we are speaking about, right?
Avoidance 101, a liberal tactic.... -Tyr

Can you find anything in the OP that states benefits are a problem, or that it’s immigrates leaving that’s the problem, or that muslims are somehow involved? (Tbh it’s almost endearing that you found a way to squeeze muslims into a topic about staff shortages at slaughterhouses...)

[Drummond]

No beef, literally (:



Can you find anything in the OP that states benefits are a problem, or that it’s immigrates leaving that’s the problem, or that muslims are somehow involved? (Tbh it’s almost endearing that you found a way to squeeze muslims into a topic about staff shortages at slaughterhouses...)

Noir, even though this is a 'side point'; I have to believe that the increasingly 'popular' practice of Halal slaughter (.. made such, thanks to the seemingly never-ending influx of more Muslims to our shores) involves Muslims !! Please present evidence that no Muslim works at any slaughterhouse run according to Halal ... or, concede the relevance of my point ....

[Gunny]

No beef, literally (:



Can you find anything in the OP that states benefits are a problem, or that it’s immigrates leaving that’s the problem, or that muslims are somehow involved? (Tbh it’s almost endearing that you found a way to squeeze muslims into a topic about staff shortages at slaughterhouses...)

I have to admit, Noir, you made me laugh. You, who couldn't stay on topic if it was superglued to the inside of your eyelids chastising someone else for veering off topic.

The fact is, you don't care who nor what is inconvenienced so long as it suits YOUR political agenda. Better hoe nobody gets the idea all that plant life you stuff in your pie hole is living organisms.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No beef, literally (:



Can you find anything in the OP that states benefits are a problem, or that it’s immigrates leaving that’s the problem, or that muslims are somehow involved? (Tbh it’s almost endearing that you found a way to squeeze muslims into a topic about staff shortages at slaughterhouses...)

Well duh.. Far easier to sit at home and draw a government check for doing nothing than it is to get out of the damn house, go to work and earn ones own way.
And hoss, I gave a link to prove my point--all you did was ignore the link--not refute its premise..
And my point made about muslims and the others drawing free government money definitely gives cause for such peoples to refuse to do " unpleasant" jobs-- yet let them starve with no damn free government handouts and see just how many decide to do those unpleasant jobs.
Logic is not your strong suit is it?
Seeing things in perspective seems not to be either, IMHO .
Seems to me that I made a case, you ignored it to blather on..

Quote
"There have always been jobs that were very unpleasant to do. Could it be that the government monies given to these people refusing to do such unpleasant work be a huge factor?"

immigrants were heralded as being needed to do those jobs the native citizens refused to do.
Yet the immigrants came in and were given subsidies and other goodies. So why even bother to work?
When you can be housed, fed and taken care of -have so very much free time to pursue your damn goal of promoting Allah and overcoming the culture that was stupid enough to invite you in.--Tyr

[Gunny]

Well duh.. Far easier to sit at home and draw a government check for doing nothing than it is to get out of the damn house, go to work and earn ones own way.
And hoss, I gave a link to prove my point--all you did was ignore the link--not refute its premise..
And my point made about muslims and the others drawing free government money definitely gives cause for such peoples to refuse to do " unpleasant" jobs-- yet let them starve with no damn free government handouts and see just how many decide to do those unpleasant jobs.
Logic is not your strong suit is it?
Seeing things in perspective seems not to be either, IMHO .
Seems to me that I made a case, you ignored it to blather on.. -Tyr

I HATE sitting around, even if my grandson does bust my ass. I'd MUCH rather be out doing some commercial electrical work.

Why is it these perfectly good f*cks (aside from between the ears and the drive departments) love to sit around and do nothing and act like they're breathing is doing someone a favor when people like me would LOVE to go back to work?

Come to think of it, NOW it DOES make sense that there are more jobs than there are unemployed people. I forgot the professional leeches.