Think your job is rough

imported post

cscitney87 wrote:

1880 Census *snip*

Click to expand...

Let's not even get into the long form version nowadays =)


eye95 wrote:

In the very first Census, the Founders had to provide their names:

http://www.1930census.com/1790_census_questions.php

Click to expand...

So let's go over those...

• 1-Name of Head of Household (First / Last)
• 2-Number of Free White Males of Sixteen Years and upwards
• 3-Number of Free White Males under Sixteen Years
• 4-Number of Free White Females
• 5-Number of all other Free persons
• 6-Number of Slaves
• 7-Town or district of residence (sometimes recorded)

1- Okaly dokaly

2- Race is irrelevant now that it isn't just whites who can vote, so there goes that. Free or not is also irrelevant since slavery is gone. So let's reduce this, for modern times, to 'number of people in household.'

3- See #2

4- See #2, and add in that Suffrage took the gender issue out of the equation.

5- Again, #2

6- Guess what, see #2!

7- Pretty easy to figure that out since the form is being sent to me by mail, so they KNOW the state, city, zip code, street, building number, and unit number. If being taken by a live census taker, they also know that information since they're already standing there.

They seemed to figure out the number of people without a problem with the information in those 7 questions. Since those can be filtered down to, at most, three questions by today's standards, there is no need for there to be 10 questions on the standard form, and certainly ZERO reason for the extended/long form.

imported post

You may say okaly dokaly to number 1 now, but just a few minutes ago, the argument was "numbers only!"

Anyway, I hope you don't think that if there were two John Smiths in Lexington, that some identifying information wasn't written in the book to distinguish them: "the carpenter," "the one down by the creek," "the one with the wart on his neck," etc.

Also, a crude form of address was also provided. Sex and race were gleanable from the information provided.

They didn't ask for telephone numbers. Ya got me there.

The point is (and it seems to have been totally missed) that the Founders recognized from the very first Census that the Manner that they Law should direct would include the collecting of a modicum of personal identifying information--


not just the numbers of people as so many have contended was all the Constitution allowed. That is just plain incorrect.

imported post

Bold font takes the day!

imported post

The census is such bu!!5h1t! What need do they have to ask how many toilets are in my house or what time do I normally leave for work!

As far as differentiating between the same person at multiple addresses they ASK for social security numbers!

There should be one question, "How many people live fulltime at this address?" Nothing more. [of course that assumes our government has kicked any illegals out first]

I don't care if they protect the data from "other" people or not because I ain't giving it!

I understand people take census "jobs" to pay "their" bills but I can't say I would act kindly toward them as they are representing an oppressive state!

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Bold font takes the day!

Click to expand...

Right. It is a further demonstration of your rhetorical inadequacies.

Click to expand...

You said that about your own words. Wow.

imported post

Back to the OP, our sheriff out here sent a letter to the regional census HQ back when they were doing their 'pre-census' stuff--you know, walking all over your property, measureing your buildings with GPS, etc. He advised them that some people out here aren't so friendly, and that under AZ law, they have the right to threaten deadly force to get someone off their property--and that the census workers had better keep that in mind.

imported post

The operation you are talking about was called "Address Validation." During that operation, a single "map spot" was created for each address. Census workers walked up to the front step and registered a map spot. If there was a locked gate or something else making it apparent that the census worker should not walk onto the property, the map spot would be registered at the entrance to the property.

Nobody was measuring any property. A single map spot was generated for each housing unit so it could be located during the actual Census.

imported post

Nothing wrong over at the Census Bureau.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/after-latest-data-release-controversy-aclu-urges-census-bureau-create-privacy

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=confirmed-the-us-census-b

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2744

imported post

eye95 wrote:

The operation you are talking about was called "Address Validation." During that operation, a single "map spot" was created for each address. Census workers walked up to the front step and registered a map spot. If there was a locked gate or something else making it apparent that the census worker should not walk onto the property, the map spot would be registered at the entrance to the property.

Nobody was measuring any property. A single map spot was generated for each housing unit so it could be located during the actual Census.

Click to expand...

Apparently the census people out of Flagstaff didn't understand that, since they were going on people's property, and taking 'spots' near all outbuildings.

imported post

Name, rank, and serial number.

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

eye95 wrote:

The operation you are talking about was called "Address Validation." During that operation, a single "map spot" was created for each address. Census workers walked up to the front step and registered a map spot. If there was a locked gate or something else making it apparent that the census worker should not walk onto the property, the map spot would be registered at the entrance to the property.

Nobody was measuring any property. A single map spot was generated for each housing unit so it could be located during the actual Census.

Click to expand...

Apparently the census people out of Flagstaff didn't understand that, since they were going on people's property, and taking 'spots' near all outbuildings.

Click to expand...

Any building that might be a housing unit would be map spotted.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

That is correct.

However, I understand and accept their reasoning. We are "from the guvmint." Already we are not trusted. Carrying a gun will intimidate further.

One reason folks won't talk to us is that they fear we are (or will share information with) law enforcement. And, face it, some of the people we need to count are criminals. We still have to count them. We have to earn enough trust to ask those ten questions. A gun will spook them.

BTW, we will not share one iota of information with law enforcement. A drug deal could go down right in front of us during an interview, and we are forbidden by law from sharing the information we have.

Click to expand...

What in the world makes you say that?

Run that by your crew leader orLocal office management and get the truth.

Being in the presence of a crime being commited and not reporting it is often a crime in itself.

That's just skipping over the morality of failing to report those actions which harm another human being.

You are obviously confused with the legally-mandated confidentiality of sharing census data versus witnessing criminal activity in the course of your duties.

For those of you reading that and thinking it may be true you need to be aware that census workers, mailmen, meter readers, social workers, etc. are expected to be responsible citizens if they witness criminal activity such as child abuse, drug transactions, firearms violations, assault, rape, imprisonment, etc. during the performance of their duties.

imported post

ecocks wrote:

eye95 wrote:

That is correct.

However, I understand and accept their reasoning. We are "from the guvmint." Already we are not trusted. Carrying a gun will intimidate further.

One reason folks won't talk to us is that they fear we are (or will share information with) law enforcement. And, face it, some of the people we need to count are criminals. We still have to count them. We have to earn enough trust to ask those ten questions. A gun will spook them.

BTW, we will not share one iota of information with law enforcement. A drug deal could go down right in front of us during an interview, and we are forbidden by law from sharing the information we have.

Click to expand...

What in the world makes you say that?

Run that by your crew leader orLocal office management and get the truth.

Being in the presence of a crime being commited and not reporting it is often a crime in itself.

That's just skipping over the morality of failing to report those actions which harm another human being.

You are obviously confused with the legally-mandated confidentiality of sharing census data versus witnessing criminal activity in the course of your duties.

For those of you reading that and thinking it may be true you need to be aware that census workers, mailmen, meter readers, social workers, etc. are expected to be responsible citizens if they witness criminal activity such as child abuse, drug transactions, firearms violations, assault, rape, imprisonment, etc. during the performance of their duties.

Click to expand...

Try to report a crime without revealing the name and address you collected during the interview during which you witnessed a crime. Not possible.

If a violent crime were going on, I'd have to solve the moral dilemma by putting myself at legal risk in order to protect the life and limb of another.

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

The census is such bu!!5h1t! What need do they have to ask how many toilets are in my house or what time do I normally leave for work!

As far as differentiating between the same person at multiple addresses they ASK for social security numbers!

There should be one question, "How many people live fulltime at this address?" Nothing more. [of course that assumes our government has kicked any illegals out first]

I don't care if they protect the data from "other" people or not because I ain't giving it!

I understand people take census "jobs" to pay "their" bills but I can't say I would act kindly toward them as they are representing an oppressive state!

Click to expand...

Noone wasasked, much less required,to provide their Social Security number during this census. If your worker asked/demanded/required it, you should immediately report that to local police andyour nearest Census Department office since you were being scammed or had an extremelypoorly-trained worker at your door.

Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers didn't agree with you regarding the census being BS. The only information you were required to provide was the number of people living at the address. The other information is not required and properly-trained workers would not have pressed you for it after you explained you didn't wish to provide it. It does have certain utility for the government and others who are watching trends in housing, racial makeup of the population, social trends, income by groupingsand so on.

If you don't want to answer the other question, don't. Close the door firmly and go about your business. If they ring again, call the police and tell them you have a census worker at your door who has been given the required information and will not leave your property.

Unreasoned anger/distrust/unkindliness at all government employees is a right of yours (in a way) as long as you don't cross the line into harassment, physical or verbal abuse. I would suggest that it isn't exactly a positive factor in your long-term health though.

Fortunately the vast majority of people had no problem with the census and cooperated with providing at least the minimum information and made the job reasonably enjoyable and low-stress. The few jerks encountered were more than offset by those who offered a cup of coffee or hot chocolate and invited the workers into their homes to sit down and do the questions (against policy but for me at least the offers were appreciated and reminded me that most folks were basically good people).

imported post

eye95 wrote:

ecocks wrote:

eye95 wrote:

That is correct.

However, I understand and accept their reasoning. We are "from the guvmint." Already we are not trusted. Carrying a gun will intimidate further.

One reason folks won't talk to us is that they fear we are (or will share information with) law enforcement. And, face it, some of the people we need to count are criminals. We still have to count them. We have to earn enough trust to ask those ten questions. A gun will spook them.

BTW, we will not share one iota of information with law enforcement. A drug deal could go down right in front of us during an interview, and we are forbidden by law from sharing the information we have.

Click to expand...

What in the world makes you say that?

Run that by your crew leader orLocal office management and get the truth.

Being in the presence of a crime being commited and not reporting it is often a crime in itself.

That's just skipping over the morality of failing to report those actions which harm another human being.

You are obviously confused with the legally-mandated confidentiality of sharing census data versus witnessing criminal activity in the course of your duties.

For those of you reading that and thinking it may be true you need to be aware that census workers, mailmen, meter readers, social workers, etc. are expected to be responsible citizens if they witness criminal activity such as child abuse, drug transactions, firearms violations, assault, rape, imprisonment, etc. during the performance of their duties.

Click to expand...

Try to report a crime without revealing the name and address you collected during the interview during which you witnessed a crime. Not possible.

If a violent crime were going on, I'd have to solve the moral dilemma by putting myself at legal risk in order to protect the life and limb of another.

Click to expand...

You need to talk with yourlocal officemanager and crew leader if you do not understand this situation.

Good Luck.

imported post

ecocks wrote:

...The only information you were required to provide was the number of people living at the address. The other information is not required and properly-trained workers would not have pressed you for it after you explained you didn't wish to provide it. ...

Click to expand...

This is not true. Responders are required by law to provide the information requested. A well-trained census worker will attempt to elicit the information through motivation, not by demand. He will walk away when motivation does not work only because we will make many attempts to get the information some other way--not because the law does not require the information be given.

Under the law, the information requested by the census must be provided.

I have had a whopping two refusals that I was not able to convince the respondent over their objections. It is a matter of technique, the number one tactic being politeness. (Oh, and one of the objectors called me later, apologized, and offered the information. However, I had already gotten very detailed information from a proxy and no longer had the EQ. So, I referred her to the LCO.)

imported post

ecocks wrote:

eye95 wrote:

ecocks wrote:

eye95 wrote:

That is correct.

However, I understand and accept their reasoning. We are "from the guvmint." Already we are not trusted. Carrying a gun will intimidate further.

One reason folks won't talk to us is that they fear we are (or will share information with) law enforcement. And, face it, some of the people we need to count are criminals. We still have to count them. We have to earn enough trust to ask those ten questions. A gun will spook them.

BTW, we will not share one iota of information with law enforcement. A drug deal could go down right in front of us during an interview, and we are forbidden by law from sharing the information we have.

Click to expand...

What in the world makes you say that?

Run that by your crew leader orLocal office management and get the truth.

Being in the presence of a crime being commited and not reporting it is often a crime in itself.

That's just skipping over the morality of failing to report those actions which harm another human being.

You are obviously confused with the legally-mandated confidentiality of sharing census data versus witnessing criminal activity in the course of your duties.

For those of you reading that and thinking it may be true you need to be aware that census workers, mailmen, meter readers, social workers, etc. are expected to be responsible citizens if they witness criminal activity such as child abuse, drug transactions, firearms violations, assault, rape, imprisonment, etc. during the performance of their duties.

Click to expand...

Try to report a crime without revealing the name and address you collected during the interview during which you witnessed a crime. Not possible.

If a violent crime were going on, I'd have to solve the moral dilemma by putting myself at legal risk in order to protect the life and limb of another.

Click to expand...

You need to talk with yourlocal officemanager and crew leader if you do not understand this situation.

Good Luck.

Click to expand...

No. Barring a threat to life or limb, I will maintain confidentiality. As per my training. Period. (BTW, I was a crew leader for two operations and conducted the training.)

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

eye95 wrote:

The operation you are talking about was called "Address Validation." During that operation, a single "map spot" was created for each address. Census workers walked up to the front step and registered a map spot. If there was a locked gate or something else making it apparent that the census worker should not walk onto the property, the map spot would be registered at the entrance to the property.

Nobody was measuring any property. A single map spot was generated for each housing unit so it could be located during the actual Census.

Click to expand...

Apparently the census people out of Flagstaff didn't understand that, since they were going on people's property, and taking 'spots' near all outbuildings.

Click to expand...

Outbuildings (really other buildings in general)were checked to determine whether they were habitable or not. Sometimes it would be apparent looking from the main road/gate, other times the buildings had to be approached and determined to be habitable or not. This was more difficult in rural areas, especially large darms and ranch-type properties where employees often live in trailers, manufactured homes or converted "outbuildings", even small dormitories or barracks-styled buildings.

Live census workers who went door to door were keeping an eye out for converted garage apartments, migrant quarters, shops with a living area and so on which were then added to the lists as households if they were separate addresses and families.

imported post

census is a waste of $

10 million more illegals will be here by 2011

imported post

they should just have them count the fence jumpers