100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Valid ID | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I personally worked one day, my son and cousins worked a few days they hire poll workers to work at the polls but also have them work before the election doing various tasks,,,it all depends I just worked the poll...(no perverted jokes please,,,)  Of course not.....So you are one of those who puts in one or two very long days per year?
when people struggle,, those one or two days can make quite a difference,,, not to mention, be a potential beginning to gaining membership into a 'network',,,,which is essential to making an income these days I know, I am just trying to determine how many jobs would be lost because you made a very big case for that being a valid reason for not having finger scanners or photo ID's...Do you know the exact or even an approximate number of jobs it would eliminate? not specifically, according to one survey I found from missouri, http://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/dk_bb_June09.pdf in 2008 a LARGE jurisdiction could employ up to 70000 poll workers a medium jurisdiction could employ up to 200 and a small one, just 5 with approximately 10,370 jurisdictions its alot of employees on those few days ,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally worked one day, my son and cousins worked a few days they hire poll workers to work at the polls but also have them work before the election doing various tasks,,,it all depends I just worked the poll...(no perverted jokes please,,,) Of course not.....So you are one of those who puts in one or two very long days per year?
when people struggle,, those one or two days can make quite a difference,,, not to mention, be a potential beginning to gaining membership into a 'network',,,,which is essential to making an income these days And yet you have failed to demonstrate a loss. They would just look at fingerprints instead of cards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally worked one day, my son and cousins worked a few days they hire poll workers to work at the polls but also have them work before the election doing various tasks,,,it all depends I just worked the poll...(no perverted jokes please,,,) Of course not.....So you are one of those who puts in one or two very long days per year?
when people struggle,, those one or two days can make quite a difference,,, not to mention, be a potential beginning to gaining membership into a 'network',,,,which is essential to making an income these days I know, I am just trying to determine how many jobs would be lost because you made a very big case for that being a valid reason for not having finger scanners or photo ID's...Do you know the exact or even an approximate number of jobs it would eliminate? not specifically, according to one survey I found from missouri, http://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/dk_bb_June09.pdf in 2008 a LARGE jurisdiction could employ up to 70000 poll workers a medium jurisdiction could employ up to 200 and a small one, just 5 with approximately 10,370 jurisdictions its alot of employees on those few days ,,,, That's the same kind of info I am finding, state by state....Really don't think the jobs would be lost, just replaced with other duties....One thing I kept running into when I was researching the poll worker jobs is this....Almost every site I went to said the jobs were getting harder and harder to fill...People just were not interested in them....That in itself leads me to believe job loss is not or should not be a consideration.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally worked one day, my son and cousins worked a few days they hire poll workers to work at the polls but also have them work before the election doing various tasks,,,it all depends I just worked the poll...(no perverted jokes please,,,) Of course not.....So you are one of those who puts in one or two very long days per year?
when people struggle,, those one or two days can make quite a difference,,, not to mention, be a potential beginning to gaining membership into a 'network',,,,which is essential to making an income these days I know, I am just trying to determine how many jobs would be lost because you made a very big case for that being a valid reason for not having finger scanners or photo ID's...Do you know the exact or even an approximate number of jobs it would eliminate? not specifically, according to one survey I found from missouri, http://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/dk_bb_June09.pdf in 2008 a LARGE jurisdiction could employ up to 70000 poll workers a medium jurisdiction could employ up to 200 and a small one, just 5 with approximately 10,370 jurisdictions its alot of employees on those few days ,,,, That's the same kind of info I am finding, state by state....Really don't think the jobs would be lost, just replaced with other duties....One thing I kept running into when I was researching the poll worker jobs is this....Almost every site I went to said the jobs were getting harder and harder to fill...People just were not interested in them....That in itself leads me to believe job loss is not or should not be a consideration.... I wouldnt believe it,,,, when they say jobs are 'harder to fill', it is often times code speak to give them an excuse to keep hiring people they personally pick where I am at, I happened to hear from a fellow poll worker, or I would have NEVER known about the openings,, they arent widely 'advertised'....most jobs in the United States arent,,,to be quite honest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally worked one day, my son and cousins worked a few days they hire poll workers to work at the polls but also have them work before the election doing various tasks,,,it all depends I just worked the poll...(no perverted jokes please,,,) Of course not.....So you are one of those who puts in one or two very long days per year?
when people struggle,, those one or two days can make quite a difference,,, not to mention, be a potential beginning to gaining membership into a 'network',,,,which is essential to making an income these days I know, I am just trying to determine how many jobs would be lost because you made a very big case for that being a valid reason for not having finger scanners or photo ID's...Do you know the exact or even an approximate number of jobs it would eliminate? not specifically, according to one survey I found from missouri, http://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/dk_bb_June09.pdf in 2008 a LARGE jurisdiction could employ up to 70000 poll workers a medium jurisdiction could employ up to 200 and a small one, just 5 with approximately 10,370 jurisdictions its alot of employees on those few days ,,,, That's the same kind of info I am finding, state by state....Really don't think the jobs would be lost, just replaced with other duties....One thing I kept running into when I was researching the poll worker jobs is this....Almost every site I went to said the jobs were getting harder and harder to fill...People just were not interested in them....That in itself leads me to believe job loss is not or should not be a consideration.... I wouldnt believe it,,,, when they say jobs are 'harder to fill', it is often times code speak to give them an excuse to keep hiring people they personally pick where I am at, I happened to hear from a fellow poll worker, or I would have NEVER known about the openings,, they arent widely 'advertised'....most jobs in the United States arent,,,to be quite honest Nope, not buying...People who want and need to work know how to find jobs..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally worked one day, my son and cousins worked a few days they hire poll workers to work at the polls but also have them work before the election doing various tasks,,,it all depends I just worked the poll...(no perverted jokes please,,,) Of course not.....So you are one of those who puts in one or two very long days per year?
when people struggle,, those one or two days can make quite a difference,,, not to mention, be a potential beginning to gaining membership into a 'network',,,,which is essential to making an income these days I know, I am just trying to determine how many jobs would be lost because you made a very big case for that being a valid reason for not having finger scanners or photo ID's...Do you know the exact or even an approximate number of jobs it would eliminate? not specifically, according to one survey I found from missouri, http://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/dk_bb_June09.pdf in 2008 a LARGE jurisdiction could employ up to 70000 poll workers a medium jurisdiction could employ up to 200 and a small one, just 5 with approximately 10,370 jurisdictions its alot of employees on those few days ,,,, That's the same kind of info I am finding, state by state....Really don't think the jobs would be lost, just replaced with other duties....One thing I kept running into when I was researching the poll worker jobs is this....Almost every site I went to said the jobs were getting harder and harder to fill...People just were not interested in them....That in itself leads me to believe job loss is not or should not be a consideration.... I wouldnt believe it,,,, when they say jobs are 'harder to fill', it is often times code speak to give them an excuse to keep hiring people they personally pick where I am at, I happened to hear from a fellow poll worker, or I would have NEVER known about the openings,, they arent widely 'advertised'....most jobs in the United States arent,,,to be quite honest Nope, not buying...People who want and need to work know how to find jobs..... a great american myth, perpetuated by people who are part of the 'network' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally worked one day, my son and cousins worked a few days they hire poll workers to work at the polls but also have them work before the election doing various tasks,,,it all depends I just worked the poll...(no perverted jokes please,,,) Of course not.....So you are one of those who puts in one or two very long days per year?
when people struggle,, those one or two days can make quite a difference,,, not to mention, be a potential beginning to gaining membership into a 'network',,,,which is essential to making an income these days I know, I am just trying to determine how many jobs would be lost because you made a very big case for that being a valid reason for not having finger scanners or photo ID's...Do you know the exact or even an approximate number of jobs it would eliminate? not specifically, according to one survey I found from missouri, http://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/dk_bb_June09.pdf in 2008 a LARGE jurisdiction could employ up to 70000 poll workers a medium jurisdiction could employ up to 200 and a small one, just 5 with approximately 10,370 jurisdictions its alot of employees on those few days ,,,, That's the same kind of info I am finding, state by state....Really don't think the jobs would be lost, just replaced with other duties....One thing I kept running into when I was researching the poll worker jobs is this....Almost every site I went to said the jobs were getting harder and harder to fill...People just were not interested in them....That in itself leads me to believe job loss is not or should not be a consideration.... I wouldnt believe it,,,, when they say jobs are 'harder to fill', it is often times code speak to give them an excuse to keep hiring people they personally pick where I am at, I happened to hear from a fellow poll worker, or I would have NEVER known about the openings,, they arent widely 'advertised'....most jobs in the United States arent,,,to be quite honest Nope, not buying...People who want and need to work know how to find jobs..... a great american myth, perpetuated by people who are part of the 'network' What network? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally worked one day, my son and cousins worked a few days they hire poll workers to work at the polls but also have them work before the election doing various tasks,,,it all depends I just worked the poll...(no perverted jokes please,,,) Of course not.....So you are one of those who puts in one or two very long days per year?
when people struggle,, those one or two days can make quite a difference,,, not to mention, be a potential beginning to gaining membership into a 'network',,,,which is essential to making an income these days I know, I am just trying to determine how many jobs would be lost because you made a very big case for that being a valid reason for not having finger scanners or photo ID's...Do you know the exact or even an approximate number of jobs it would eliminate? not specifically, according to one survey I found from missouri, http://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/dk_bb_June09.pdf in 2008 a LARGE jurisdiction could employ up to 70000 poll workers a medium jurisdiction could employ up to 200 and a small one, just 5 with approximately 10,370 jurisdictions its alot of employees on those few days ,,,, That's the same kind of info I am finding, state by state....Really don't think the jobs would be lost, just replaced with other duties....One thing I kept running into when I was researching the poll worker jobs is this....Almost every site I went to said the jobs were getting harder and harder to fill...People just were not interested in them....That in itself leads me to believe job loss is not or should not be a consideration.... I wouldnt believe it,,,, when they say jobs are 'harder to fill', it is often times code speak to give them an excuse to keep hiring people they personally pick where I am at, I happened to hear from a fellow poll worker, or I would have NEVER known about the openings,, they arent widely 'advertised'....most jobs in the United States arent,,,to be quite honest Nope, not buying...People who want and need to work know how to find jobs..... a great american myth, perpetuated by people who are part of the 'network' What network?
NBC, I;m guessing... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally worked one day, my son and cousins worked a few days they hire poll workers to work at the polls but also have them work before the election doing various tasks,,,it all depends I just worked the poll...(no perverted jokes please,,,) Of course not.....So you are one of those who puts in one or two very long days per year?
when people struggle,, those one or two days can make quite a difference,,, not to mention, be a potential beginning to gaining membership into a 'network',,,,which is essential to making an income these days I know, I am just trying to determine how many jobs would be lost because you made a very big case for that being a valid reason for not having finger scanners or photo ID's...Do you know the exact or even an approximate number of jobs it would eliminate? not specifically, according to one survey I found from missouri, http://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/dk_bb_June09.pdf in 2008 a LARGE jurisdiction could employ up to 70000 poll workers a medium jurisdiction could employ up to 200 and a small one, just 5 with approximately 10,370 jurisdictions its alot of employees on those few days ,,,, That's the same kind of info I am finding, state by state....Really don't think the jobs would be lost, just replaced with other duties....One thing I kept running into when I was researching the poll worker jobs is this....Almost every site I went to said the jobs were getting harder and harder to fill...People just were not interested in them....That in itself leads me to believe job loss is not or should not be a consideration.... I wouldnt believe it,,,, when they say jobs are 'harder to fill', it is often times code speak to give them an excuse to keep hiring people they personally pick where I am at, I happened to hear from a fellow poll worker, or I would have NEVER known about the openings,, they arent widely 'advertised'....most jobs in the United States arent,,,to be quite honest Nope, not buying...People who want and need to work know how to find jobs..... a great american myth, perpetuated by people who are part of the 'network' What network?
NBC, I;m guessing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally worked one day, my son and cousins worked a few days they hire poll workers to work at the polls but also have them work before the election doing various tasks,,,it all depends I just worked the poll...(no perverted jokes please,,,) Of course not.....So you are one of those who puts in one or two very long days per year?
when people struggle,, those one or two days can make quite a difference,,, not to mention, be a potential beginning to gaining membership into a 'network',,,,which is essential to making an income these days I know, I am just trying to determine how many jobs would be lost because you made a very big case for that being a valid reason for not having finger scanners or photo ID's...Do you know the exact or even an approximate number of jobs it would eliminate? not specifically, according to one survey I found from missouri, http://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/dk_bb_June09.pdf in 2008 a LARGE jurisdiction could employ up to 70000 poll workers a medium jurisdiction could employ up to 200 and a small one, just 5 with approximately 10,370 jurisdictions its alot of employees on those few days ,,,, That's the same kind of info I am finding, state by state....Really don't think the jobs would be lost, just replaced with other duties....One thing I kept running into when I was researching the poll worker jobs is this....Almost every site I went to said the jobs were getting harder and harder to fill...People just were not interested in them....That in itself leads me to believe job loss is not or should not be a consideration.... I wouldnt believe it,,,, when they say jobs are 'harder to fill', it is often times code speak to give them an excuse to keep hiring people they personally pick where I am at, I happened to hear from a fellow poll worker, or I would have NEVER known about the openings,, they arent widely 'advertised'....most jobs in the United States arent,,,to be quite honest Nope, not buying...People who want and need to work know how to find jobs..... a great american myth, perpetuated by people who are part of the 'network' What network?
the 'word of mouth' network,, people who know people who know people,,,etc,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOLTS stands for Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. The February 2012 statistics show there were 3.66 official unemployed people hunting for a job to every position available
so even if EVERY job was filled, you would still have 2/3 of the same amount without JOBS,,,,, so there isnt a job for everyone who 'wants one bad enough' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOLTS stands for Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. The February 2012 statistics show there were 3.66 official unemployed people hunting for a job to every position available so even if EVERY job was filled, you would still have 2/3 of the same amount without JOBS,,,,, so there isnt a job for everyone who 'wants one bad enough' What about all the jobs that are not surveyed because peeps use "the network" to fill the positions? By the way, you never did say if you thought stronger ID verification at the polls might increase jobs... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOLTS stands for Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. The February 2012 statistics show there were 3.66 official unemployed people hunting for a job to every position available so even if EVERY job was filled, you would still have 2/3 of the same amount without JOBS,,,,, so there isnt a job for everyone who 'wants one bad enough' What about all the jobs that are not surveyed because peeps use "the network" to fill the positions? By the way, you never did say if you thought stronger ID verification at the polls might increase jobs... having a job opening isnt dependent upon publicly advertising a job opening the survey is in regards to job openings, period,,, and no, I dont see how machines have ever 'increased' jobs,, the point is usually to save someone some money which translates to job cuts ,,,, |
|
|
|
|
