Off Topic: Signs of Progress

[Greg Peisert <gpeisert@jamesgregory.com>]

Laura;

  Good points. Have you heard of that lady up in Chicago who is having so 
much success moving "welfare moms" into the workplace? I think she was on 
20-20 or 60-Min or one of those programs, about a year ago. Her stats were 
incredible.

  The city or state (I'm not sure which) introduced a training program to 
help people move from welfare to jobs and this lady works in that program. 
There are a bunch of people working it, and the numbers aren't 
good...except for this lady. Most people were having something like a 20% 
placement success rate. Her's is around 80% or more. Naturally, they wanted 
to know what she was doing that the others are not.

  It turns out, she is training them in how to function in the business 
world. She focuses as much on that as on the technical skills. She takes 
them down to the discount stores and gets them outfitted, so they look like 
they belong in the business world. Then she teaches them interviewing 
skills and role-plays with them.

  Naturally, none of this practical material is in the state curriculum. 
She works on their self-esteem and helps them believe in themselves (one of 
the real keys to success). In the interview, she spoke about how their 
whole attitude changed as they gained confidence that they could handle 
themselves in an interview, and that they knew how to "dress for success." 
She even taught them skills in how to do their hair and make-up.

  She explained that when you take someone who has not been in the working 
world, it is literally a new world for them. They have to learn the 
"uniform", the "social skills" for that world, how to talk, how to handle 
themselves. She coaches them in various business situations and teaches 
them how to handle situations around an office. And she talked about the 
almost instant improvement in self-esteem and the way these ladies handled 
themselves just by changing their dress, their appearance, and getting a 
little confidence to handle an interview.

  The results pretty much speak for themselves. Now, are her methods 
catching on in the rest of the training? I haven't heard. I hope so, but I 
doubt it. This lady is exceptional because she does so much of this on her 
own, simply because she enjoys helping the people and the sense of 
satisfaction she gets when she sees them succeed. What they need to do in 
these training programs is implement the practical stuff, and teach people 
how to dress and how to handle themselves in the business world.

  The other thing they pointed out was that her people are landing much 
higher paying jobs than average for the program. One lady started out at 
$28,000 a year. She went from welfare one day to $28k a few weeks later. 
Most of the folks got jobs that were in the $16-20k+ range. So none of this 
minimum wage stuff. It was a fabulous story. I wish I had taped it.

--Greg



On Wednesday, February 17, 1999 4:26 PM, Laura Walker 
[SMTP:LJW6626@worldnet.att.net] wrote:
> Greg --
>
> You are ALSO correct.  Providing assistance and being our brothers' and
> sisters' keepers, IMO, helps people learn to help themselves, by 
providing
> them with training, "welfare" and other forms of federal, state and local
> assistance until they are competent and capable to take care of 
themselves
> and their families.  Unfortunately, it doesn't end there, however, 
because
> employers (and others) are hesitant to hire people who have been on 
welfare,
> unemployed for extended periods of time, etc.  I don't think I need to
> elaborate on the ways in which the poorest and lowest classes in our 
society
> continue to be discriminated against in employment and other ways, in 
spite
> of their determination, will and desire to "make it".  Thus the reason 
that
> unions, community (local, state, federal) agencies, non-profit
> organizations, legal aid, will probably always be necessary.  Otherwise,
> these folks -- or probably many, many of the rest of us average 
low-middle
> class individuals -- would never even get the opportunities to get the
> skills/training/jobs/benefits...
>
> Laura
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Peisert <gpeisert@jamesgregory.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY <noprivacy@essential.org>
> Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 3:36 PM
> Subject: RE: Laura/Margaret/Greg: A conflict in core beliefs
>
>
> >Thank you, Ed.
> >
> >  You are correct. What I do find interesting, however, is that there 
are a
> >large number of converts (at least that I'm aware of) from modern
> >liberalism to libertarianism in their thinking. They make the leap from 
a
> >position that embraces "social" freedom to embracing "freedom." I am 
hard
> >pressed to find anyone who has gone the other way. But, it is a hard 
step.
> >No doubt about that. It is a difficult step to grasp the notion that to
> >truly be your brother's keeper, you need to provide the temporary
> >assistance he needs, then insist that he learn to be his own keeper. He 
may
> >kick and scream and fight and tell you you are cruel and heartless and
> >uncaring. But anything less disables him. So, the discussion is 
worthwhile,
> >even if tedious at times.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >   -- Greg
> >
> >"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
> >change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- 
Margaret
> >Mead
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sunday, February 14, 1999 12:14 PM, Edward Britton
> >[SMTP:fremin@geocities.com] wrote:
> >> Laura, Greg, et al.
> >>
> >> After reviewing your disparate arguments--and myriad others of similar
> >ilk
> >> on other lists--I am here to tell you all that you will never reach a
> >> resolve regarding this most basic of "economic contentions."
> >>
> >> This issue boils down to a basic conflict in the core belief systems 
of
> >> both sides of the debate. Whereas "free market" partisans cannot 
accept
> >> relative poverty in a socio-economic scheme as being caused by 
anything
> >> other than the sloth of those who suffer from same, "collectivist"
> >> partisans cannot fathom the "nobler" atributes of social Darwinism.
> >Whereas
> >> one group insists that such hybridized systems which blend socialism 
and
> >> capitalism can work together for the good of all, the other will 
continue
> >> to relentlessly tout the merits of rugged individualism. The two modes 
of
> >> thought are, sadly, immiscible.
> >>
> >> Edward   ><>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>