Homeless people need to be protected under law too

Let’s talk about discrimination for a minute. Firing someone for being homeless is a discriminatory policy. The end.

 

The Clarion Ledger.com had the story by Emily LeCoz. A woman hired earlier this month was fired on Monday by KFC for being homeless. Eunice Jasica had been staying in the Salvation Army lodge since December after losing her job, home, and car.

 

The Salvation Army requires its residents to look for employment daily, and after finding it to pay for lodging and save for a place of their own. Jasica had been job hunting for months, but only just found employment on March 11. Jasica had been hired to perform “prep work” and would receive a pay check every two weeks. However, when Jasica showed up for work on Monday, franchise owner Chesley Ruff withdrew the offer after learning she lived at the Salvation Army.

 

Jasica says, “He told me to come back when I had an address and transportation. But how am I supposed to get all that without a job?”

 

Ruff signed a letter on Monday stating she couldn’t be employed “due to concerns of lack of residence and transportation.”

 

Of course, on Thursday, Ruff changed his tune saying that he was protecting her from the real reason he couldn’t hire her: she has not prior food prep experience and seemed to elderly to lift the 40-pound boxes. Yeah, that is way harsher than you’re homeless and unworthy of a job. Ruff said, “I was trying to spare her feelings, I guess. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, but I know it was stupid.”

 

Jasica has experience in retail and security, but no food experience. According to KFC Corp spokesman Rick Maynard, KFC operates more than 5,200 restaurants nationwide and follows all applicable employment laws, but notes that independent franchisees make hiring decisions. Additionally, this happened in Mississippi, which is a right to work state so you know minimal labor protections and the employer and employee can terminate a relationship at any time as long as it doesn’t violate anti-discrimination statutes. And this doesn’t because the homeless aren’t protected. However, Jasica might have an argument due to Ruff’s comments about her age.

 

Ruff is arguing he didn’t terminate Jasica because she hadn’t been hired. Of course the documentation signed by the store’s general manager says different. The general manager had no comment. Ruff has hired the homeless in the past, so you know he can’t be discriminating against them now when there is a high unemployment rate. Ruff also described it this way, “Over the 20 or so years I’ve been in Tupelo doing business. I’ve helped people before.” [I need a shower to get that self-congratulatory statement off me.  He’s helped people so much. *tears*]

 

So in conclusion, people are awful and things are rigged. You have no way of escaping poverty once you’re there. Mike Elk posted that Rhode Island is the only state with a homeless bill of rights which prevents the police, medical professionals, etc from treating the homeless poorly because of their housing status.

Poor people finger scanned when picking up their children from daycare.

For the love of all that is holy Fuck this shit.

No children, this is no acceptable. Gather round:  Poor people have rights. Yeah, I said it. It is not acceptable to scan the fingers of poor parents receiving subsides in child care while other people just walk in and out with their children. Kathy Mulady for Equal Voice News wrote about this phenomenon in Mississippi.

Susan Williams, who is subjected to the finger scans had this to say, “I don’t mind it, but I really don’t see the point in it, I don’t understand why it’s necessary. You have to stand in line and wait for it.”

Others were more critical, saying it is embarrassing and inconvenient. According to a statement from Mississippi DHS, the finger scanning system “will maximize federal dollars” though improving accuracy of attendance figures and cutting administrative costs, which is somehow going to enable more children to be served. Of course the childcare providers and advocates are singing a different song. They claim this new system will do the opposite of what it says it will. They claim the costs and disruption of the gate-keeping system will reduce the number of centers will to accept children with federal childcare vouchers. Oh, so this is the point: to embarrass the poor parents and segregate the poor children.

One low-income parent has filed a class action lawsuit claiming the finger scan is an invasion of her privacy (doesn’t she know poor people have no privacy: second class citizens with their reproduction restrictions and the amount of information that has to be shared with caseworkers) and that requiring her to submit to a fingerprint scan without cause is an unreasonable search and seizure. Yes, yes it is.

The American Civil Liberties Union in Mississippi (who I imagine are always busy) are investigating the legality of the finger scans. Progressive Louisiana is the only other state that requires finger scans of low-income parents at daycare centers. The ACLU in Louisiana’s (another group I imagine doesn’t get many days off) executive director, Marjorie Esman says, “We don’t treat people like criminals when they have done nothing wrong. Government doesn’t need to keep a record of the fingerprints of innocent people.”

Childcare rights advocates are concerned about what is happening in Mississippi. Kim Kruckel, the executive director of the Child Care Law Center in San Francisco, says, “If the goal is fraud prevention and efficiency, then there is certainly lots of ways to do that without requiring biometrics.”

More so, why are we assuming there is a fraud problem? What is this based on? Who are you?

Kruckel goes on to say, “Just because parents are poor, they still have the same privacy rights, and they have the right to choose who picks up their children from child care without having to submit them for fingerprinting. For undocumented families this will provide a real barrier to child care. That would be a huge issue for us in California.”

Mississippi has a huge waitlist for childcare subsidizes, and this verification system will cost the state more than 1.6 million a year. Because you know that’s going to help the children more than sending their 8,000 kid waiting list to childcare. Carol Burnett, executive director of the Mississippi Low-Income Child Care Initiative says, “There is no evidence that fraud is a problem in the child care program.” You don’t say?

She continued to say, “In addition, it is really hard for parents to get vouchers in Mississippi. It’s a cumbersome process; it requires extensive documents and it unnecessarily complicated.”

Mulady attempted to get a statement from Mississippi DHS, but none of her calls were returned.

There are complaints about the finger scanning machines already available like sometimes they are finicky and complicated. Childcare providers and low-income parents in Mississippi are fighting back. First they held public meetings with state officials, then filing lawsuits, and urging legislators to block the program. The latest lawsuit was filed by Elizabeth Williams who fears she will lose her childcare subsidizes if she refusing the finger scan.

Despite concerns of the parents, advocates, and childcare providers, the state is moving forward on this. The verification systems will be in place in 400 centers soon. It is an offensive practice for the low-income parents, but it is also an added burden for the childcare providers. The parents who receive childcare vouchers are going to be required to attend trainings and have their fingers scanned into the system at the central office. The office is only open during business hours so the parents will have to miss work because that’s great for the low-income. Each owner of a childcare facility that accepts vouchers has to place a $900 deposit on the electronic finger scanners and open a bank account so that reimbursements can be automatically deposited or withdrawn.

Can someone explain to me how conservatives reconcile “big government bad” with this kind of policy? Because this is cray cray. Or, maybe there is someone out there who wants to explain to me how this isn’t classist, sexist, with a side of racism? The classist aspects are obvious, low-income people are being targeted, these scanners won’t be used for people not receiving vouchers. Riddle me this why are the kids not receiving vouchers safe with whoever their parents send for them, but the poor kids aren’t? Except we’re operating with the assumption that poor people are committing fraud. Second, sexism, well women are more likely to be the primary childcare provider within families and childcare facilities. They are being targeting with unnecessary requirements and costs. I dare someone to tell me this isn’t racist. It should like ND, FL, and GA’s attempts to eliminate welfare through the backdoor with drug testing, which has to be paid for by the recipients and then reimbursed if they pass. They are targeting Reagan’s fictional welfare queen again.

Happy Valentine's Day, Virginia would like embryos to be people now.

I know, I wasn't going to post today because I'm going to celebrate a holiday that justifies my obsession with rom-coms and chocolate, but then Virginia gains some traction in this embryos are people too debate.

Yesterday, the Virginia House of Delegates advanced a personhood bill that gives legal rights to a fertilized human egg, but they rejected the amendment that ensured contraception remain legal once the bill goes into effect.  Yes you read that right, embryos are people, contraception may not be allowed.

Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) defined the word personhood as the moment of fertilization in the Code of Virginia. Marshall has been pushing for a bill like this for 20 years, and promises that the bill will not "directly" affect contraception or abortion.  It just provides the legal framework for mothers to sue if anything happens to their unborn baby (hide under the beds doctors and healthcare providers).

I'm pretty sure when they rejected the amendment that protects contraception they were telling you what they think of it.  Personhood bills are being considered in at least 12 other states as ballot measures or bills.  These would lead to a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.  I think we should remember that Mississippi rejected a personhood measure because of how it complicated the legality of stem cell research, in vitro, abortion, and some birth control.

Remember the good old days when conservatives just wanted to take away abortion?  Is it wrong to miss that?

I'll once again go over my argument against personhood: it only counts as a person if it isn't female, gay, or brown. Then this whole legal protects thing goes out the window.  Because women, gays, and minority groups find themselves fighting for legal rights all the time.  I say make these little parasites fight for themselves too.

Finally, I reserve the right to kill anything inside me without my consent.  It seems fair.