Dignity for the Unemployed Act Requires Jobless To Volunteer For Benefits

After 51 consecutive months of surpassing the national unemployment rate, Georgia is considering putting its jobless to work, for free.

Senator John Albers recently introduced the Dignity for the Unemployed Act, a measure that would require the jobless to volunteer 24 hours per week in order to earn their benefits, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports. Albers says that mandating the unemployed to give back could play a key role in bringing down the unemployment rate, which hit 10.2 percent in October, but opposers fear that it will detract from their job hunt.

"When folks lose their job, it can be very depressing and defeating," Albers told CNN.
"Getting motivated...serving folks, getting new stuff on your resume [are] only positives. When you're helping our citizens serve other people and serve charities, only good can come of it."

According to the AJC, the unemployed would start volunteering two weeks after becoming eligible for benefits and that the Labor Department could exempt those facing "cases of hardship."

Some recent findings support Albers' theory that service could bring down unemployment numbers.

A report released by the National Conference on Citizenship in September concluded that states with high rates of volunteering, did not see as big a rise in unemployment from 2006 to 2010 compared with states with lower rates.

"There is growing evidence of a connection between social capital and economic resilience," Michael Weiser, NCoC Chairman, said in a press release, "and we believe our analysis presents strong correlations for how the civic health of a community can help a community weather tough economic times."

But, for some of those who are out of work -- and are actively seeking employment opportunities -- this act is seen as a hindrance to finding a paying job.

Joyce Wilson, who has been unemployed since February, told CBS Atlanta that she doesn't see any merit to Albers' act.

"For one, I do charity work," Wilson told the news outlet. "I don't need anyone to tell me to do it and if they are going to make it mandatory, they need to give me a little something for my gas. They are taking away from my time looking for a job."

Albers, however, says it's critical to bring a fresh approach to resolving the unemployment issue.

"We have to challenge the status quo," Albers told CNN. "We have to do things differently. We have to do them better."

What do you think of this exchange? Weigh in below:

Quick Poll

Should unemployed people be required to volunteer to receive benefits?

Yes, great idea!

No, that's pointless!

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

WATCH Related Video:

Comments

[SteveDenver]

03:25 AM on 12/30/2011

Most states prohibit volunteer or unpaid internships, which is short-sighted because many people find employment through both of those avenues. At the very least, it keeps people feeling job-ready.

[SteveDenver]

03:26 AM on 12/30/2011

I should clarify that volunteer and unpaid internships are prohibited for people receiving unemployment insurance benefits.

[Chitazma]

09:07 AM on 12/21/2011

I wouldn't say it should necessarily be REQUIRED as a condition to receive unemployment. It should, however, COUNT towards one's job search. I was out of work for a year and a half, receiving unemployment for nine of those months, and my volunteer time and my job search time easily reached, even surpassed, 24 hours per week.

[Ann Cummings]

03:13 PM on 12/14/2011

What about all those *worthless, lazy bums* who are disabled? Shouldn't they also have to volunteer for their benefits? Or how about all retirees, who paid into Social Security all of their working lives? Make them get out there and volunteer to continue getting their pittance. Then some (not all) wealthy people can sit back and collect their tax cuts and whatever, and not have to lift a finger to help anyone. I've paid into Social Security, I've paid unemployment taxes, I've paid income taxes. I'm trying for disability because I am in too much physical pain to work (I'm 55). I'm not on drugs, I have NO children so am not supporting them with *government* money. I'm just trying to survive in this crazy world.

[Naithom]

11:11 AM on 12/14/2011

I have been unemployed since June and have volunteered with several organizations (Literacy, fundraising for disaster victims, civil rights) to try to keep my spirits up since the job hunt is so discouraging. (No jobs in my field open, told I am overeducated and overqualified for other jobs) I can see the positives and negatives to the idea. On one hand, good work can be done and you feel you are doing something positive but then, are those organizations utilizing volunteers instead of hiring employees.

On a lighter note, it would be a hoot is the unemployed volunteered for the Democratic Party to vote out those who refused to work on creating jobs. With that number of volunteers, they could greatly off-set whatever money the GOP threw at the election.

[Pamela Dumas]

08:27 AM on 12/14/2011

I feel they need to make jobs and the people can work!

[Sean Laney]

01:39 AM on 12/14/2011

Why don't they just create some jobs and hire these people? They are already paying them. . .

[MiddleMolly]

03:39 PM on 12/13/2011

First of all, this is Georgia. Georgia has had the worst record on job creation this year. Georgia is the ONLY STATE to have negative job growth in 2011... the only one. And, instead of trying to figure out how to create jobs, they want to double down on the unemployed. Come on, Georgia, if you had more jobs in your darned state, you wouldn't have so many unemployed people. Instead of finding ways to burden your already overburdened unemployed citizenry, figure out a way to create some jobs! And, no, giving more tax breaks to your rich friends and political contributors will NOT CREATE JOBS!

[Disketta]

02:27 PM on 12/13/2011

Where? At Walmart? We're already subsidizing Walmart's underpaid employees with food stamps and other benefits. Why not just force people to work there for nothing? Why not close the store and just hand over the taxpayer's money to the owner's family? I don't think 24 hours is a reasonable amount of time for people to be expected to work for their benefits. Ten, at most. Looking for work is a full-time job, as we are told again and again. this is yet another punitive measure to squeeze as much out of the poor as possible and GIVE IT TO THE RICH. The rich should have to pay more in taxes.

[Tedesco McLean]

12:35 PM on 12/13/2011

My unemployment benefits state: Did you do any kind of work whether paid for or not? The implication being that if I find ANY kind of work (that would give me insufficient money to pay my mortgage, bills, food) I am employed and employable. As much as I would love to use my abilities as a volunteer I can't take the chance that I will have to default on my financial responsibilities. Plus, if I am "working" it follows that I don't "need" unemployment benefits. Currently, there are NO jobs in my field within a 2 hour drive from my home and I can't sell my house either.

[Neal Feldman]

11:13 AM on 12/13/2011

First the 1% destroy the economy and tens of millions of jobs, then they attack those who are un/under employed.

Who, again, is waging class warfare?

[Gina Parziale]

11:00 AM on 12/13/2011

I work for a charity-and I think this is a good idea. It may stop people from saying that people stay unemployed to collect benefits (which I do not believe they do) as well as imporve the morale of those who have lost their jobs. A great way to feel better about yourself is by helping others. There does need to be some further definition of the details though.

There would need to be a complete list of charities and organizations that need volunteers on so much of a regular basis. There also may be issues with backround checks etc...

Priority needs to be given to these people finding jobs-so schedules must be flexible. If they have a job interview-they can't say, "but I am scheduled to volunteer and need to hit my hours this week." Same with those who are taking classes or job training-they should have reduced requirements.

These volunteers can not be taking the place of paid workers. If more people lose their jobs because of it-then the program is doing more harm than good. Charities that receive volunteers can not lay people off in their place.

Volunteers should be compensated their travel expenses.

Consideration should be given to their past experience and charities for which they care. If they are being forced to work there-they may be less productive and be more of a pain in the butt than helpful.

[MiddleMolly]

08:52 PM on 12/13/2011

I don't have any problem with encouraging people to volunteer if they can do so without harming their job search activities.

You mentioned most of the problems with such an endeavor, which is why I think that mandatory volunteering (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is not a good idea.

Also, I know people who have used their unemployment time to attempt to set up small businesses. Would such people be exempted from volunteer service? How would anyone verify that they were spending that time on developing a small business?

And, as I wrote elsewhere, I have managed teams of volunteers.. It's hard enough when the people want to be there, much less when people don't want to be there.

[Bozzgirl]

10:37 AM on 12/13/2011

I was unemployed for over a year. It is extremely disheartening and was very damaging to my self esteem. Looking for employment became my job. I started to look for volunteer opportunities just so I would have some sort of purpose to my days and perhaps get some additional experience to put on my resume. I don't think volunteer work for the unemployed is a bad thing; but rather than making it a requirement, it should be encouraged. And maybe for those that do volunteer, they could get a little extra in their unemployment checks to compensate for the gas.

[Jean Esplin]

09:46 AM on 12/13/2011

If someone is required to volunteer, it is no longer voluntary and therefore, no longer volunteering.

[candynickel]

09:09 AM on 12/13/2011

24 hours is a bit much. But I think the general idea is good. There is ALWAYS some sort of volunteer work available locally unless you live in a rural area and even then, many farms or schools have volunteer positions available. I do think that many people get in the rut of unemployment because, while they know they need to work, it's just easier to sit at home filling out applications.

[Elizabeth Walton]

09:02 AM on 12/13/2011

Volunteering in your field will create new contacts, networking opportunities, even enable people to learn new skills. That is far more useful than sitting on the internet trolling job boards, which lets face it, only takes about an hour a day.

[maryk4d4]

10:08 AM on 12/26/2011

When USAA shut down their Western Regional Office here in Sacramento it left a lot of unemployed professionals searching for jobs. During a conversation with one that was having a pretty difficult time with his job search I suggested that he volunteer at Senior Gleaners or one of the schools in his area. He was indignant and wanted to know why he should work for free. I told him that 1) volunteers don't work for free, their labor is a gift to someone in need 2) it looks good on a resume and 3) There are a lot of local businesses involved with Senior Gleaners and you never know if the guy unloading the truck is unemployed or a CEO that has a position that needs to be filled. He thought about what I said, decided I was right and he is now employed by the son in law of the lady that sorts the baked goods at Senior Gleaners.