There's people that have a run of bad luck and need something to get them trough the situation. it's easier to find a job again when there's no worrying how you're going to eat.

And then there's people that get more from the state than I earn just by having enough kids the uterus can produce without blowing up. And spend less effort in finding a job than me preparing for the olympic games.

Nothing wrong with giving an immigrant some starter funds for good luck PROVIDED the immigrant has skills/education/know how to benefit the hosting country.

We could get the buerocrats to find jobs for the less than fortunate and give them an ultimatum: take it or find money elsewhere.
But I'd be called a nazi/rightwinger/greedy capitalist pig if I wanted to implement strict welfare regulations.

Isn't that the point. Seriously, if I had no hope of success, I would've just took on another job with someone. Heck, the first year there were several times I couldn't pay myself, but employees got paid.

Aye, I get what you're saying. But too often those on welfare or similar aids are lumbed together and called slackers. That is not the case, some just can't get a job. A thing to remember also is that not everyone lives in a big city with 2 billion MacDonald's to work on, some simply can't get a job.

And usually by people who got a job via connections and work 15min out of an 8 hour shift.

Exactly. I had a friend who got to work at the primary metal plant because his father was working there. The hell with experience, qualifications etc.

I've also seen the exact opposite. When I worked at the book distributor back in the mid '90s we had one employee who was more skilled, experienced, qualified, and a better worker than just about anybody there. He could never get promoted into management because they had anti-nepotism rules and his step-father was the overall manager of the place.

Anti-nepp.. anti-nejpp... anti-nuuuu...

As a Slovene I can't even pronounce it, let alone know what it is :o


Polar opposite, equally damaging to the company.

Means ya can't promote family, ya blamed idjit furriner! :O:

One of the traps is the big city and having all the free social services there, housing projects, etc...With the generational mindset of welfare, people don't get cars, etc. Every morning you see numerous people walking or taking the bus to the welfare office and there are no jobs down that way. Sort of like it tooks years to realize in Africa you don't help nomadic tribes survive in the long run by setting up food cities where the ground is dry.

Yes, hiring family within the company (nepotism) and calling the company 'an equal opportunity employer' would tend to lack the 'timbre of verisimilitude! :smug: Now go 'splice the mainbrace'- BBY!:rotfl2:

I know what nepotism means, it's the backbone of our economy and politics :O:
It's that anti part that fries my brain.
You can't even buy newspapers here without having to be related to the postman so the papers even arrive

At least you know it's him; he always rings twice! :03:

I figured you knew. :D

But yes, it's true. Here we have countered the practice by making laws, or at least in-company rules. A lot of job applications for large nation-wide companies actually have the question "Do you have any relatives who work for (XXXX)?"

I can see not wanting to be seen promoting family over others more qualified, but to exclude the qualified because they are family? Seems a little wrong to me.

Goes both ways then, I think. If you ask me, the most qualified should get the job. Would serve in everyone's best interest. EDIT: But that would be in the 'perfect world'. :P

Agree. Seems to me that as long as the relatives aren't in the same chain of command it'd be ok.