 |
| |
|
|
DarkCloud
|
 |
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
...I know this story is a bit out of date- but it seems so bizarre that I am wondering if this is really true...
It would seem to violate UN regulations against forcing people to work in the sex-industry...
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/n...30/ixworld.html
quote:
A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.
Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.
The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.
She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.
Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.
The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.
When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that it had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people who turn down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from the potential employer.
"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."
Miss Garweg said that women who had worked in call centres had been offered jobs on telephone sex lines. At one job centre in the city of Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview as a "nude model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in the sex industry can also advertise in job centres, a move that came into force this month. A job centre that refuses to accept the advertisement can be sued.
Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.
"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.
Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12 prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.
Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court. Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut links to organised crime.
Miss Garweg believes that pressure on job centres to meet employment targets will soon result in them using their powers to cut the benefits of women who refuse jobs providing sexual services.
"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.
"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
It is old news, and somewhere in the archicves there are a thread about the same issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:18
|
|
Hmm. When people sign up for jobless benefits, give them two (or more) choices in terms of which prospective employers can contact them.
If they allow the full spectrum (i.e. any employer can contact them), their jobless benefits last for, say, two full years. If they allow only certain employers to contact them, their benefits last, say, for 1.5 years. If they're really picky about who may contact them, the benefits run out after one year. And so on ...
This way, folks have *some* control over their futures while knowing up-front that, hey, the government can and will reduce their unemployment benefits after a set amount of time should the unemployed folks be picky about who can and cannot contact them.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkCloud
|
|
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
It's selling a service. And re: modeling, that's even more absurd. I fail to see how nude modeling is any more "selling your body" than a Victoria's Secret model, a kid who's modelling in a Lands' End catalogue, or hell, an actor on a TV show.
|
In what other industry can a person be stigmatized by possible future fiancees, etc.?
A person can argue that by prostituting herself- less men would want to join with her in marriage... and if she's married- it's very unfair to her spouse who might
a: conduct a STD due to the interaction,
b: have an added fear of 'underperforming' in bed, etc.
--
admittedly, nude modelling is an issue I have less trouble with since it's more of a 'societal status' issue, in that a person might be ostracized from a church, friends, etc. for doing so- but even nude models today aren't chattle slaves in that they have to show their faces/certain parts of their bodies etc if they don't want to- they'll be paid less, yes- but they'll still be paid.
Making unemployment benefits contingent upon nude modelling is a grave double standard- those who don't want, say their face to be shown, might be argued by the nude modeling agency to be overly picky in resisting the job- and therefore should be inelgible for unemployment benefits... whereas people going into that industry of their own choice would not have that option.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
In what other industry can a person be stigmatized by possible future fiancees, etc.? |
What does that have to do with anything?
You're confirming my point: people are having an emotional, irrational response to prostitution.
quote:
A person can argue that by prostituting herself- less men would want to join with her in marriage... |
So? Guynemer recently lost (well, dumped) his gf because she couldn't take the 80 hour weeks - we should extend this protection to doctors!
quote:
and if she's married- it's very unfair to her spouse who might |
Well, sucks for the spouse. Is this your only argument that prostitution should be in its own category - that it hurts marriages?
quote:
a: conduct a STD due to the interaction, |
AIUI from Diss, legalized, regulated prostitution has a very low rate STD infections.
quote:
b: have an added fear of 'underperforming' in bed, etc.
-- |
That's an argument?
quote:
admittedly, nude modelling is an issue I have less trouble with since it's more of a 'societal status' issue, in that a person might be ostracized from a church, friends, etc. for doing so- but even nude models today aren't chattle slaves in that they have to show their faces/certain parts of their bodies etc if they don't want to- they'll be paid less, yes- but they'll still be paid. |
Eh, actually, by definition a nude model would have to show everything 
quote:
Making unemployment benefits contingent upon nude modelling is a grave double standard- those who don't want, say their face to be shown, might be argued by the nude modeling agency to be overly picky in resisting the job- and therefore should be inelgible for unemployment benefits... whereas people going into that industry of their own choice would not have that option. |
It's not a double standard at all. It's consistent, rational application of a principle, disregarding our irrational, emotional prejudices.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-07-2005 06:16
|