Think your job is rough

JT · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

eye95 wrote:

However, with each successive operation we become more dogged in getting the information from those from whom we were unable to acquire the information in the previous operation.

eye95, I know many of the folks who sign up as census workers are just trying to do a job but the story around here is one of rank incompetance. My Mother-in-law received her Census form, hand carried, that had the correct street address but the State and zip were for a town in Georgia. Then there is my experience.

1. Census worker shows up at my house and asks my son if he has the correct address (which is clearly posted on the mailbox he walked right past to get to the house). My son looks at the census form and tells the worker that he has the wrong address and the address is for somone on a different street over a half-mile away. The census worker tells my son that his records show that he has the correct address and that he has to take the form by law. Census worker leaves.

2. I get home and my son tells me what happened. I spend two hours on the phone tracking down the appropriate person to handle my complaint. I report the incident and with the manager's approval, agree to deliver the form to the correct address since I know the people involved. The conversation ends with a promise that a corrected form will be mailed or hand delivered to my address. I deliver the form to the correct address as promised.

3. Three months pass with no response from the census bureau. Late one evening I get a call from the neighbor who Idelivered the originalform to telling me that a census worker showed up at his door asking where I lived. I told him to send him to my house and I would meet him. Thinking he he is finally here to deliver the promised form I greet him and ask for the form. He informs me that because of my refusal to respond to the census in a timely manner he cannot give me the form.I must give him the answers to the questions. I am not allowed to even touch the form. Needless to say I am ticked.I bent over backwards to comply and was treated as if I were an offender. After a very tense 15 minutes I gave him what info I could off the top of my head, insisting he get out of his air-conditioned vehicle and stand in the heat, mosquitos and deer flieswith me. He wanted to sit in his car or come inside for the inquisition. I refused. We both left angry.

4. I call the regional office again and wastold, in affect, too bad, so sad he was just doing his job.

So consider this. While you talk about what is supposed to happen, realize what is happening. I can give you dozens of similar stories that I have been told. If my area is any indication the results of this one are not to be trusted and are a preparation for gerrymandering on a scale never seen before. It was co-opted by the whitehouse from the beginning for that very purpose.

ecocks · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

eye95 wrote:

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.)

LOL - I plainly said "after you explained you didn't wish to provide it."

That is the law/requirement and your decision was your decision. When the question as to "what was the minimum information?" was asked by the respondent providing the information, workers attempted to explain the additional information was for statistical purposes, blah, blah, blah...in a friendly, non-threatening manner, often overcoming RELUCTANCE. Several people did not wish to provide pieces of the info, most often birthdays of children. No one refused the mortgage/rent/own clearquestion which I personally thougt was the most intrusive. Training in my area CLEARLY emphasized not to persistafter a respondent stated explicitly that they did not wish to give more information than required, and the workers were told to leave politely and graciously, thanking the person for their cooperation.

Numerous people provided only the minimum information (number of people living at that address) and this sufficed for the census requirements. If I had to guess percentages in my area I would say maybe 15% provided only the number of people living in that home. I had one person who became irate and abusive, insisting he didn't need to tell me anything and slamming the door. As mentioned above our first recourse was to simply walk over to a neighbor's house and seek the information since nobody (worker/managers/police) really wanted to deal with forcing the citizen to provide information if possible. This worked equally well for those who simply refused to answer the door or respond to the flyers requesting contact which were left on their doors.

I suspect the irate guy would have had a stroke if he knew his neighbor's reaction which was actually kind of funny. As to how many of the non-responsive realized we just got the information from their neighbors I also suspected thatsome would have been upset about their neighbors giving the info.

Our training was VERY clear that only the numbers of people living at that address was required under the law.

Thoreau · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

ericfrompahrump wrote:

they should just have them count the fence jumpers

Heh, what fence? =(

eye95 · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

JT wrote:

eye95 wrote:

However, with each successive operation we become more dogged in getting the information from those from whom we were unable to acquire the information in the previous operation.

Click to expand...

eye95, I know many of the folks who sign up as census workers are just trying to do a job but the story around here is one of rank incompetance. My Mother-in-law received her Census form, hand carried, that had the correct street address but the State and zip were for a town in Georgia. Then there is my experience.

1. Census worker shows up at my house and asks my son if he has the correct address (which is clearly posted on the mailbox he walked right past to get to the house). My son looks at the census form and tells the worker that he has the wrong address and the address is for somone on a different street over a half-mile away. The census worker tells my son that his records show that he has the correct address and that he has to take the form by law. Census worker leaves.

2. I get home and my son tells me what happened. I spend two hours on the phone tracking down the appropriate person to handle my complaint. I report the incident and with the manager's approval, agree to deliver the form to the correct address since I know the people involved. The conversation ends with a promise that a corrected form will be mailed or hand delivered to my address. I deliver the form to the correct address as promised.

3. Three months pass with no response from the census bureau. Late one evening I get a call from the neighbor who Idelivered the originalform to telling me that a census worker showed up at his door asking where I lived. I told him to send him to my house and I would meet him. Thinking he he is finally here to deliver the promised form I greet him and ask for the form. He informs me that because of my refusal to respond to the census in a timely manner he cannot give me the form.I must give him the answers to the questions. I am not allowed to even touch the form. Needless to say I am ticked.I bent over backwards to comply and was treated as if I were an offender. After a very tense 15 minutes I gave him what info I could off the top of my head, insisting he get out of his air-conditioned vehicle and stand in the heat, mosquitos and deer flieswith me. He wanted to sit in his car or come inside for the inquisition. I refused. We both left angry.

4. I call the regional office again and wastold, in affect, too bad, so sad he was just doing his job.

So consider this. While you talk about what is supposed to happen, realize what is happening. I can give you dozens of similar stories that I have been told. If my area is any indication the results of this one are not to be trusted and are a preparation for gerrymandering on a scale never seen before. It was co-opted by the whitehouse from the beginning for that very purpose.

I have seen instances of incompetence that make yours pale by comparison. I correct what I can (and have, on occasion, been told to overlook errors) and am downright OCD about doing things by the book.

As near as I can figure, the first contact would have been part of Update/Leave. You should have never been allowed to convey a census form to someone else. Someone from the Census Bureau was being incredibly lazy.

The census worker on the second visit was absolutely correct not to let you handle the form. As near as I can figure, the second visit was Non-Response Follow-Up. During that operation, the form (a different one) must be filled in by the census worker.

Regardless of any gerrymandering conspiracy you see, except for mistakes and mismanagement (which are likely at similar levels compared to censuses from the past) the count is being conducted forthrightly, albeit not as competently as it should.

eye95 · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

ecocks wrote:

eye95 wrote:

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.)

Click to expand...

LOL - I plainly said "after you explained you didn't wish to provide it."

That is the law/requirement and your decision was your decision. When the question as to "what was the minimum information?" was asked by the respondent providing the information, workers attempted to explain the additional information was for statistical purposes, blah, blah, blah...in a friendly, non-threatening manner, often overcoming RELUCTANCE. Several people did not wish to provide pieces of the info, most often birthdays of children. No one refused the mortgage/rent/own clearquestion which I personally thogt was the most intrusive. Training in my area CLEARLY emphasized not to persistafter a respondent stated explicitly that they did not wish to give more information than required, and the workers were told to leave politely and graciously, thanking the person for their cooperation.

Numerous people provided only the minimum information (number of people living at that address) and this sufficed for the census requirements. If I had to guess percentages in my area I would say maybe 15% provided only the number of people living in that home. I had one person who became irate and abusive, insisting he didn't need to tell me anything and slamming the door. As mentioned above our first recourse was to simply walk over to a neighbor's house and seek the information since nobody (worker/managers/police) really wanted to deal with forcing the citizen to provide information if possible. This worked equally well for those who simply refused to answer the door or respond to the flyers requesting contact which were left on their doors.

I suspect the irate guy would have had a stroke if he knew his neighbor's reaction which was actually kind of funny. As to how many of the non-responsive realized we just got the information from their neighbors I also suspected thatsome would have been upset about their neighbors giving the info.

Our training was VERY clear that only the numbers of people living at that address was required under the law.

Please. You are wrong when you talk of a minimum amount of information or of folks explaining that they do not wish to provide it.

While the Census Bureau, in any of the operations to date, is not pressing the legal requirement, respondents are required by law to answer the questions being asked--all of them.

It is important that we not provide misinformation to the public about what the law says on providing the requested information.

ecocks · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

Any gerrymandering will occur in the computer manipulation of the collected data. "Co-opting" individual census worker to this end is far, farbeyond the competence of even an ACORN-trained street supervisor.

eye95 · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

ecocks wrote:

Any gerrymandering will occur in the computer manipulation of the collected data. "Co-opting" individual census worker to this end is far, farbeyond the competence of even an ACORN-trained street supervisor.

Good point.

Co-opting census workers would be the most inefficient way of gerrymandering!

Gerrymandering is going to happen. It always does. It will happen in a way that favors the party doing the districting. BTW, doesn't districting happen at the State level?

45acpForMe · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

ecocks wrote:

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...

No one was asked, 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 and your nearest Census Department office since you were being scammed or had an extremely poorly-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 groupings and 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).

I don't know what form you got but mine had places for SSN's. Also the long form which asked stuff like what time do you normally leave for work and do you have indoor plumbing. I can't think of a single use of data on how many toilets I have unless they were selling the info to a plumbers union.

The thing that really REALLY pisses me off is the wording on how all of the questions are required by law and fines and penalties for not answering are something like $500 per question.

I have no problem telling how many people live in my household since it is required by the constitution FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE of congressional redistricting and representation. Anything else is BS.

Now to have some federal government representative visit my house asking those same unconstitutional questions under threat of fines is Tyranny and should be dealt with as such. I am sure that 60-80% of the sheeple are too intimidated by the over-reaching gov't to resist. I don't blame BHO for the census format because I believe all that was done prior to his reign but if an ACORN worker shows up asking questions he won't be treated kindly.

eye95 · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

I guarantee you that the decennial census forms do not ask for social security number.

If you have a form that purports to be a census form and it asks for SSN, it is a fraud.

This is the information that the census will ask you for:

Address.

Number of people living at a residence.

Names, relationships, sexes, dates of birth, ages, hispanic orgin, race, if you lived other places.

Own or rent. Pay mortgage, rent, or neither.

Telephone number.

I just ran through the EQ and the ICR in my mind. That's all they ask for. Period.

On edit: the fines listed on the form are a dead giveaway that the form is fake. The fine for not providing information, per US Code Title 13, Section 221, is $100 TOTAL. (For giving false answers, the fine is a maximum for $500.) Furthermore, no census form or worker will threaten you with a fine. The workers don't even know what it is. I only know because I looked it up earlier today.

JT · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

eye95,

I shouldn't have even bothered but your answer was about what I expected to get. By your own admission the form filled out on me was a special one for the non-compliant because your vaunted bureau was too lazy and incompetent to do a simple job like follow their own procedures. So I'm now flagged as a malcontent by a special form even though I was in fullcompliance with the law including reporting census worker issues. So,oh conscientious census man, what is my recourse? I am to be content in the knowledge that though MY GOOD NAME has been besmirched in official government records,you are on the job? After all the government wouldn't make use of that FALSE information would they?:cuss:

As for conspiracies, I take you at your word and I'm glad you take pride in your work but you are the exception and the results of thiscensus will reflect the rule.

45acpForMe · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

I have seen news reports that say the penalty can be up to $250,000 and or 5 years in jail, $100 per question not answered, $500 per question answered untruthfuly, to $100 total (as you mentioned) for not answering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZz8KSkN1NQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL6712oouzA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsDhkPym01k&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFvS5m4_OtA&feature=related

eye95 · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

JT wrote:

eye95,

I shouldn't have even bothered but your answer was about what I expected to get. By your own admission the form filled out on me was a special one for the non-compliant because your vaunted bureau was too lazy and incompetent to do a simple job like follow their own procedures. So I'm now flagged as a malcontent by a special form even though I was in fullcompliance with the law including reporting census worker issues. So,oh conscientious census man, what is my recourse? I am to be content in the knowledge that though MY GOOD NAME has been besmirched in official government records,you are on the job? After all the government wouldn't make use of that FALSE information would they?:cuss:

As for conspiracies, I take you at your word and I'm glad you take pride in your work but you are the exception and the results of thiscensus will reflect the rule.

No, the form is not a special one for the non-compliant. It is the form used by census workers to conduct an interview for several operations. The key is that it is the Enumeration Questionnaire filled in by a sworn census worker as opposed to an Individual Census Report filled in by unsworn residents.

Neither is the operation Non-Response Follow-Up for the non-compliant. There are a variety of reasons for which a housing unit would be part of NRFU, most of which have nothing to do with non-compliance. Nor are the census workers judgmental about whether or not a respondent was compliant. We just have a case to work.

The only flag that caused a NRFU enumerator to stop by your residence was a flag saying that we did not have a census completed for that housing unit. That is all.

Not everything affecting you that goes wrong is part of some nefarious plot against you.

eye95 · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

I have seen news reports that say the penalty can be up to $250,000 and or 5 years in jail, $100 per question not answered, $500 per question answered untruthfuly, to $100 total (as you mentioned) for not answering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZz8KSkN1NQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL6712oouzA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsDhkPym01k&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFvS5m4_OtA&feature=related

I cited the law. If you don't believe me, how about just reading that law?

Erus · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

*DISCLAIMER*: please forgive the following attempt at lame humor.

A census worker once tried to test me...
I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

Yeah.. sounds like a rough job.

But seriously, I can see and agree with counting heads.. and I complied.. but I offered no additional requested information. Good "privacy" record or not, it ain't nobody's damn business, IMHO. YMMV.

45acpForMe · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

eye95 wrote:[/quote]
I cited the law. If you don't believe me, how about just reading that law? [/quote]

I have read the census site, and looked up the law (a while back) The $100 fine for not submitting and $500 for fraudulent or missing answers can add up if they are per question not answered.

I also received 2-4 mailings before the census showed up reminding me that under penalty of law they had to be answered fully. They went straight to the recycling box.

As far as SSN I am pretty sure the form I received had them but could be mistaken. I have since seen statements that if you receive a form and it asks for SSN throw it away because it is fraudulent.

JT · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Neither is the operation Non-Response Follow-Up for the non-compliant. There are a variety of reasons for which a housing unit would be part of NRFU, most of which have nothing to do with non-compliance. Nor are the census workers judgmental about whether or not a respondent was compliant. We just have a case to work.

The only flag that caused a NRFU enumerator to stop by your residence was a flag saying that we did not have a census completed for that housing unit. That is all.

Not everything affecting you that goes wrong is part of some nefarious plot against you.

1. You don't read well. I wasTOLD it was for non-compliance.

2. Nevermind that this flag should have never been set in the first place.

3. You don't read well. I never said it was part of a nefarious plot against me. I said I don't trust the government not to use the FALSE information against me.

Please quit trying to justify the census bureau or their workers. They blew it at every leveland if anyone ever suffers any repercussions for their ineptitude it will be me and the others they have treated in similar fashion. The results of this census will not be accurate or used in good faith.

eye95 · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

JT wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Neither is the operation Non-Response Follow-Up for the non-compliant. There are a variety of reasons for which a housing unit would be part of NRFU, most of which have nothing to do with non-compliance. Nor are the census workers judgmental about whether or not a respondent was compliant. We just have a case to work.

The only flag that caused a NRFU enumerator to stop by your residence was a flag saying that we did not have a census completed for that housing unit. That is all.

Not everything affecting you that goes wrong is part of some nefarious plot against you.

Click to expand...

1. You don't read well. I wasTOLD it was for non-compliance.

2. Nevermind that this flag should have never been set in the first place.

3. You don't read well. I never said it was part of a nefarious plot against me. I said I don't trust the government not to use the FALSE information against me.

Please quit trying to justify the census bureau or their workers. They blew it at every leveland if anyone ever suffers any repercussions for their ineptitude it will be me and the others they have treated in similar fashion. The results of this census will not be accurate or used in good faith.

1. You have no need to insult me. Once I have replied to you on point, I will move on. I choose not to have discussions with folks who descend into the personal insult.

You may have heard the enumerator say it was for non-compliance. I strongly doubt he said it, mainly because enumerators have no idea why any particular case ends up in our notebook. However, if he did say such a thing, he was speaking out of ignorance and/or poor training.

2. The flag is set for every housing unit. It gets reset once a survey is received. It is basically a giant checklist of which housing units have been surveyed and which have not been. Checklists are necessary to get jobs done. Don't read too much into it.

3. I never said that you said it was a nefarious plot against you. Your post had a distinct flavor of the-government-is-doing-inappropriate-things-and-I-am-a-victim-of-it, so I assured you that there was no plot and you are not a target.

As I said, moving on. Conversation with you is no longer productive nor enjoyable. Have a nice day.

IndianaBoy79 · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

I've gotta say I have some mixed feelings on this. On one hand, eye95 makes perfect sense, and I think he is completely correct stating the law on the matter. However, I wouldn't follow a law that told me I couldn't carry, and I don't follow other laws that I believe to be wrong.

The census bothered me for a couple of reasons. I don't like answering race on ANY form unless it's for a legitimate reason (medical perhaps). They said this information will be used to enforce compliance with equal opportunity laws, which I find disgusting in a day and age when race isn't a factor that should be influencing any government decisions.

Long story short, I complied by filling in the form but I omitted answers that I didn't feel comfortable giving. When they sent a gentleman to my property, I told him to leave and have a good day; he proceeded to follow me to my doorstep where he was greeted by the door shutting behind me. There is no need to threaten, harass, argue, or start a confrontation of any kind with a census worker. I haven't heard anything since.

eye95 · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

I've gotta say I have some mixed feelings on this. On one hand, eye95 makes perfect sense, and I think he is completely correct stating the law on the matter. However, I wouldn't follow a law that told me I couldn't carry, and I don't follow other laws that I believe to be wrong.

The census bothered me for a couple of reasons. I don't like answering race on ANY form unless it's for a legitimate reason (medical perhaps). They said this information will be used to enforce compliance with equal opportunity laws, which I find disgusting in a day and age when race isn't a factor that should be influencing any government decisions.

Long story short, I complied by filling in the form but I omitted answers that I didn't feel comfortable giving. When they sent a gentleman to my property, I told him to leave and have a good day; he proceeded to follow me to my doorstep where he was greeted by the door shutting behind me. There is no need to threaten, harass, argue, or start a confrontation of any kind with a census worker. I haven't heard anything since.

Who said the answer to the race question would be used to enforce equal opportunity laws? Certainly not the Census Bureau. The only thing they will do with that information is report statistics. How others use those statistics is up to them.

However you choose to answer the race question is the answer. If someone were to say "Human," we would direct them to the list or races and ask again. If he were to say "Human" again, we would write that answer in. I could be looking square at Diane Chambers' alabaster skin, and if she said, "African American," I would put the X in the box next to "African American."

Thoreau · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

eye95 wrote:

I could be looking square at Diane Chambers' alabaster skin, and if she said, "African American," I would put the X in the box next to "African American."

Thanks for proving how worthless, pointless, and UNNECESSARY some of those questions are. Please state again why they feel that it is constitutional to ask them in the first place since you've shown us how it is of zero real value?

Think your job is rough

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Newbie

Well-known member

Regular Member

Newbie

Well-known member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member