Is it sinful to receive "free" money when a job is available?

[Werbenjagermenjensen]

With the additional CARES money on top of unemployment many are earning what works out to $15 an hour. If you were receiving minimum wage before it’s hard to justify cutting your income on top of taking the risk with COVID-19. If you work in a restaurant then you’d be returning to a very slow business with few customers and few tips. I wouldn’t want to return to work either in those circumstances. I guess a way around it for employers is to pay enough hazard pay to entice people to return to work.

 

[farronwolf]

I am not judging anyones souls, I am asking about their actions.

You are free to think what you wish.

 

[KMC]

Interesting thread. While I do believe the moral decision is up to the individual, since they know all of the variables and circumstances for their life, the aspect of this topic I have an issue with is the morality of setting up an incentive for someone to not work.

I have a friend who works part time at a furniture store. He called this shutdown a “windfall”, since he is getting paid more via government benefits than he was making working part time. I have read at least one story of an employer who got a loan for the business to continue and was met with opposition by some of her employees because they were making more not working than working.

The morality of setting up a system like that falls on the politicians who created it.

 

[whatistrue]

So as long as they follow the rules, which most now do not require that you search for work, it is ok and not a sin?

Yes. The Church has not defined receiving unemployment benefits under the prevailing rules set by the entity providing the benefits as a sin.

Can we translate this to getting divorced and remarried as following the civic rules and it be ok, and not a sin?

No, because the Church has defined remarriage after divorce and without a decree of nullity as a sin.

 

[buffalo]

"7. You know how you should take us as your model: we were not undisciplined when we were with you, 8. nor did we ever accept food from anyone without paying for it; no, we worked with unsparing energy, night and day, so as not to be a burden on any of you. 9. This was not because we had no right to be, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to imitate. 10. We urged you when we were with you not to let anyone eat who refused to work."

[2 Thessalonians, 3]

 

[farronwolf]

Yes. The Church has not defined receiving unemployment benefits under the prevailing rules set by the entity providing the benefits as a sin.

My premise was not that all unemployment benefits are sinful, it is that choosing unemployment benefits over going back to work when called by your employer is sinful.

Choosing not to work when offered your job back, if there are no other reasons you can’t work, would seem to go against the Church’s teachings.

Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another.210 Hence work is a duty: "If any one will not work, let him not eat."211 Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work212 in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish.213 Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.

 

[1ke]

So as long as they follow the rules, which most now do not require that you search for work, it is ok and not a sin?

Correct. It is not sinful.

Can we translate this to getting divorced and remarried as following the civic rules and it be ok, and not a sin?

The Church has laws on the sacrament of marriage, and we are obliged to follow them. Adultery is intrinsically evil.

The Church does not have laws on receiving payments from the government.

Can we translate this to having or performing an abortion as following the civic rules and it be ok, and not a sin? Please lets not derail this into an abortion issue.

Intrinsically evil acts are not the same as morally neutral acts that are in the realm of prudential judgment.

A person is NOT breaking any commandment of God by lawfully receiving money from the government.

They would be if they lied or committed fraud, which IS a sin against the commandments.

I see you really want this to be a sin, but it simply isn’t.

Just because they rules say you can do something doesn’t mean it is right or not sinful. Simply pointing that out.

I didn’t make that claim.

 

[whatistrue]

My premise was not that all unemployment benefits are sinful, it is that choosing unemployment benefits over going back to work when called by your employer is sinful.

It certainly sounded that way. However, it still isn’t, in my mind, a sin. Yes, work is good and useful, but just because a job is available doesn’t automatically mean that not taking it is sinful. There may be many reasons for continuing on unemployment rather than taking a job; the schedule might not allow you to fulfill family (e.g. childcare) responsibilities; the work environment might be too risky for your particular situation (even if it meets OSHA guidelines, etc.). There are many others that I think a few minutes thought will discover for pretty much anyone.

And another thing to consider is that the funding for unemployment benefits does not magically appear, it comes from payments from employees (taxes) and/or payments from employers (unemployment insurance premiums), and if you were working before, then you have already contributed to the pool of money being used either by your taxes or by the premiums paid by your employer (who gets that money as part of the value you provide to the business). Therefore it could be argued that you have already worked for the benefits you are getting, even if your specific work did not pay for every cent of your benefit; it is a shared pool paid into by all and available to all under the appropriate circumstances.

 

[farronwolf]

Yea, you might do a bit of research into who pays into the unemployment fund. Not certain what state you live in, but the likelihood that you have paid in as an employee is slim to none.

Employers yes. Employees, not so much. It is pretty rare.

 

[whatistrue]

Since I am not an expert on funding sources for every program in every state and locality, and I well know that unemployment is widely (but not necessarily exclusively) funded by employer contributions, I definitely included it as a primary source, and used the term “and/or” to indicate such. So does any of that change the result? Since the employer gets the money to pay in to the fund by your work providing value to the business? I think not.

 

[farronwolf]

This is getting off topic, but the employer gets his money from the customer, not the employee.

Not discounting that employees are necessary, but they are not the source of the revenue used to pay the taxes.

So workers should be able to periodically just stop working and draw unemployment benefits to get some of the money that was paid into the system for them. People who work their entire lives without drawing have somehow been cheated of a benefit. Quite a new concept.

Unemployment is designed that when a job is no longer available, funds are there in the interim until another job becomes available. Under normal circumstances, if you are offered a job your benefits cease when you refuse to take the job. The person has a duty to seek and take employment when offered.

What I am getting from many of the responses is that when jobs become available, if it is more convenient for people to simply stay home and keep drawing a check (since it is allowed with the rule changes) it is perfectly acceptable to do so. I suspect many will have that same attitude, and we are in for a very protracted high unemployment rate. Very sad situation for this country. Very sad.

 

[1ke]

Employers yes. Employees, not so much. It is pretty rare.

In the US, yes. In Canada, it sounds like it’s standard.

 

[1ke]

if it is more convenient for people to simply stay home and keep drawing a check (since it is allowed with the rule changes) it is perfectly acceptable to do so.

No one is saying that. What people ARE saying is that you are ASSUMING “people just don’t want to work”.

What we have ACTUALLY said is that it isn’t intrinsically evil, it’s prudential judgment. There are a number of factors in play in this situation — as has already been pointed out to you — such as child care, risk and health factors— and it isn’t sinful if they are following the law.

 

[farronwolf]

Have no idea how the Canadian system works. If that is where you live, then things may be quite different.

It still doesn’t change my mind on the subject, regardless of who pays the premiums.

 

[1ke]

Have no idea how the Canadian system works. If that is where you live, then things may be quite different.

I do not live in Canada. I live in the US. There have been several threads on unemployment, and Canadians have given their (name removed by moderator)ut. The church is worldwide, not US centric.

It still doesn’t change my mind on the subject, regardless of who pays the premiums.

Because in your mind you’ve made judgment about people’s motives that are not in evidence.

 

[farronwolf]

I am not assuming people don’t just don’t want to go back to work. I am seeing real life actual cases of that happening.

Do others have evidence this isn’t happening?

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

I agree with you. This is a perfect example why socialism leads to communism. When people are incentivised not work due to socialism, the govt needs to turn to communism to force people to work.

But one must remember the crisis and the risk of being around people right now. What is happening is a manifestation of Keynesian economics, not socialism.

My point was simply: when you give people free money, they lose their motivation to work for it.

I have no problem with Keynesian economics & I never implied what is happening is not Keynesian economics.

However, lawmakers have to be very careful when using Keynesian economics to insure that people don’t cheat the system or take advantage of loopholes. We also have to make sure that these policies are SHORT TERM and do not become long term pet projects of the leftists.

 

[phil19034]

Sometimes socialistic programs are a good thing.

Socialist programs are never a good thing. Social Welfare programs on the other hand are often a good thing.

Social Welfare programs are not the same thing as socialism.

Socialism is evil. The govt helping the poor is not evil.

 

[1ke]

I am seeing real life actual cases of that happening.

I sounds like you are hearing second hand stories from customers you supply that they have people who aren’t returning.

What it doesn’t sound like is that you have bad first hand conversations with these employees to know what their reasons might have been.

 

[whatistrue]

but the employer gets his money from the customer, not the employee.

Which he would not get without the value add of the employee. Hence the employee “earns” his participation in the pool.

So workers should be able to periodically just stop working and draw unemployment benefits to get some of the money that was paid into the system for them. People who work their entire lives without drawing have somehow been cheated of a benefit. Quite a new concept.

Yeah, it is new. Especially since it is nowhere near what I said.

Unemployment is designed

Originally yes. Original purposes can change, especially under novel circumstances. Or do you not believe that the situation is sufficiently different to mean making changes to adapt to it?