Indentured servitude is the answer!
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/07/10603296-ohio-school-district-hires-collection-agency-to-go-after-unpaid-lunch-money
QuoteOhio school district hires collection agency to go after unpaid lunch money
By Sylvia Wood, msnbc.com
An Ohio school district has hired a collection agency to prove to students and their parents that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
The Columbus City Schools hope to recover an estimated $900,000 in unpaid lunch money from almost 6,000 students. The district loses roughly $2,622 every school day in unpaid lunches, according to a report on NBC4i.com. Most of the delinquent accounts average between $150 and $170, according to Meade and Associates, the collection agency in Westerville hired by the district to collect the money.
Advertise | AdChoices
"Our goal is to recover the balance in full," Sean Meade, client relations manager, told msnbc.com. But he added, "we're here to help," so if "payment arrangements are needed, we'll work with the family."
Columbus City Schools did not return a call from msnbc.com. Unpaid-for lunches are not unique to Columbus. Across the country, districts are struggling as the ailing economy brings more students to school without lunch money.
"It's one of those issues that we're seeing more of," Diane Pratt-Heavner of the Maryland-based School Nutrition Association told msnbc.com. The group recently surveyed 964 of its members. Fifty-three percent said they had seen increases in the number of students unable to pay for lunch.
Schools have been trying to balance budget cuts with new federal nutrition standards that are expected to increase the cost of meal preparation. In response, Pratt-Heavner said her group would like Congress to require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to spell out how schools should respond to requests for unpaid lunches and how to manage the debt.
"The people working in our school cafeterias are not in this line of work for the money – they want to serve all their kids – but at the end of the day, the new nutrition standards for school meals are raising the cost of serving school meals, and school nutrition programs simply cannot afford to allow unpaid meal charges go unchecked," Pratt-Heavner told msnbc.com.
Until then, school districts continue to make accommodations for students who can't pay. Some offer alternative meals of cheese or peanut butter sandwiches. Districts also try various methods of collecting debts, such as phone calls and letters to parents.
Pratt-Heavner said more districts are turning to collection agencies.
Meade told msnbc.com his agency will start contacting parents by early April, using phone calls and letters. Of every dollar collected, the company will earn 26 cents in commission.
I don't remember ever getting any lunches on credit. Course, I brown bagged most days.
LOL have they considered not fucking serving the kids who don't have the money for it any food? Jesus.
Not serving lunch to children is not really an option for the schools.
That is both cruel and harmful.
Quote from: Jaron on March 08, 2012, 02:37:33 AM
Not serving lunch to children is not really an option for the schools.
That is both cruel and harmful.
Is this why you moved to Utah? Fleeing creditors due to your thousands of dollars in unpaid lunch debt!? :o
They'll eat when they get home. Or not. Who cares? Obviously not America.
The point is, either feed them for free (preferred option) or tell them there's no more gruel (a less good option). But don't indebt them, and their families, for God's sake. That's horrible.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 08, 2012, 02:41:09 AM
The point is, either feed them for free (preferred option) or tell them there's no more gruel (a less good option). But don't indebt them, and their families, for God's sake. That's horrible.
I don't see how it's possible for children to be allowed to rack up debts that can then be enforced by debt collection agencies :mellow:
Kids call paid numbers or order stuff from the internet all the time so it is not that unheard of Sheilbh, but I agree this gets fucked up when you deal with hungry children.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2012, 06:18:26 AM
I don't see how it's possible for children to be allowed to rack up debts that can then be enforced by debt collection agencies :mellow:
They can't. The debts are owed by their parents.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2012, 06:47:10 AM
They can't. The debts are owed by their parents.
How does the debt build up though?
QuoteKids call paid numbers or order stuff from the internet all the time so it is not that unheard of Sheilbh, but I agree this gets fucked up when you deal with hungry children.
It depends how this works though. Those examples are in the home so you can assume some degree of parental responsibility and oversight.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2012, 06:49:56 AM
How does the debt build up though?
I would guess the families get billed for lunch and they don't pay.
Start breaking their tiny little kneecaps. The they'll pay.
I remember growing up, kids whose parents qualified below a certain income level--you know, like fucking poverty--got morning milk and to eat lunch for free. Of course, that was during the Carter Administration, when free school lunches for poor kids was destroying America.
Sure glad we got that straightened out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2012, 06:55:38 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2012, 06:49:56 AM
How does the debt build up though?
I would guess the families get billed for lunch and they don't pay.
Ok. Here it's more normal for the kid to bring money in for their lunch, or to bring in an amount, from the parents, for a week - at least that's what I had.
If the parents are getting billed and not paying then that's a bit different.
QuoteI remember growing up, kids whose parents qualified below a certain income level--you know, like fucking poverty--got morning milk and to eat lunch for free. Of course, that was during the Carter Administration, when free school lunches for poor kids was destroying America.
Maggie got rid of free school milk when she was Education Secretary. We still have free school meals which has become a standard, shorthand measure of poverty for all sorts of statistics - for example how many kids on free school meals get into Oxbridge.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2012, 08:50:02 AM
for example how many kids on free school meals get into Oxbridge.
How many? Curious.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2012, 08:51:29 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2012, 08:50:02 AM
for example how many kids on free school meals get into Oxbridge.
How many? Curious.
I think the last year we have figures for show Oxford accepted 25, Cambridge 20. The total intake of undergrads was 6000, so it was under 1%.
Damned quotas.
All those Columbus based collection agencies just splooged their pants.
When I was in school I came up with the perfect solution. Sadly, my modest proposal was never adopted.
I called it the "trough" method.
Remember back in school that lunches were mostly limp vegitables, heated meat patties, greasy fries and the like, all covered in watery gravy? And that the kids ate more like little animals than people?
Here's the plan: instead of serving individual meals, simply construct a trough down the centre of the lunchroom, with one end in the kitchen; have the bottom inclined to create a slow flow. Put your limp vegitables, greasy fries etc. in the high end of the trough in the kitchen, all floating on a river of gravy. Give the kids cheap plastic forks to stab out passing morsels.
Then, kids pay - not to eat, but for their placement along the trough. They pay more for being close to the place where the food originates, and progressively less as they go towards the further end. The kids who cannot pay anything go to the very end. Of course, those towards the end get the less desireable bits, have to deal with half-eaten chunks etc. and everything is colder and more congealed.
The trough method serves many purposes: it ensures everyone is fed, it saves the school money (as it surely costs less to maintain a single trough than to serve individual portions), and it acts as a useful allegory for our social system while teaching children the value of money and social hierarchy. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 08, 2012, 09:06:24 AM
All those Columbus based collection agencies just splooged their pants.
You know, I can't understand how there are so many fucking collection agencies in Columbus, and yet everybody's so fucking polite. I don't git it. It's like a town of passive-aggressive retards.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2012, 09:08:04 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 08, 2012, 09:06:24 AM
All those Columbus based collection agencies just splooged their pants.
You know, I can't understand how there are so many fucking collection agencies in Columbus, and yet everybody's so fucking polite. I don't git it. It's like a town of passive-aggressive retards.
I think they get the collection agency workers from Dublin, Franklin county's Prickland.
I dunno, man...just seems like every time I go to Columbus, it's like stepping into Groundhog Day. GIMME THAT TOASTER PLZ
Love the trough malthus :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on March 08, 2012, 09:07:50 AM
Then, kids pay - not to eat, but for their placement along the trough. They pay more for being close to the place where the food originates, and progressively less as they go towards the further end. The kids who cannot pay anything go to the very end. Of course, those towards the end get the less desireable bits, have to deal with half-eaten chunks etc. and everything is colder and more congealed.
The trough method serves many purposes: it ensures everyone is fed, it saves the school money (as it surely costs less to maintain a single trough than to serve individual portions), and it acts as a useful allegory for our social system while teaching children the value of money and social hierarchy. :)
Why make them pay? Make them fight. Teach them real Darwinism not the social variety :)
Wouldn't real Darwinism reward reproductive success rather than just combat ability?
Quote from: Maximus on March 08, 2012, 09:40:08 AM
Wouldn't real Darwinism reward reproductive success rather than just combat ability?
Do we really want to go there? :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2012, 09:36:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 08, 2012, 09:07:50 AM
Then, kids pay - not to eat, but for their placement along the trough. They pay more for being close to the place where the food originates, and progressively less as they go towards the further end. The kids who cannot pay anything go to the very end. Of course, those towards the end get the less desireable bits, have to deal with half-eaten chunks etc. and everything is colder and more congealed.
The trough method serves many purposes: it ensures everyone is fed, it saves the school money (as it surely costs less to maintain a single trough than to serve individual portions), and it acts as a useful allegory for our social system while teaching children the value of money and social hierarchy. :)
Why make them pay? Make them fight. Teach them real Darwinism not the social variety :)
Naw, the fighting thing has less real-world applications.
What you need, is to allow them to scam each other out of their lunch money. :D
Quote from: Malthus on March 08, 2012, 09:07:50 AM
Remember back in school that lunches were mostly limp vegitables, heated meat patties, greasy fries and the like, all covered in watery gravy? And that the kids ate more like little animals than people?
Wait, what are school lunches like now? And isn't gravy sorta verboten for you Jews?
Our lunches were "free".
Quote from: Malthus on March 08, 2012, 09:07:50 AM
When I was in school I came up with the perfect solution. Sadly, my modest proposal was never adopted.
I called it the "trough" method.
Remember back in school that lunches were mostly limp vegitables, heated meat patties, greasy fries and the like, all covered in watery gravy? And that the kids ate more like little animals than people?
Here's the plan: instead of serving individual meals, simply construct a trough down the centre of the lunchroom, with one end in the kitchen; have the bottom inclined to create a slow flow. Put your limp vegitables, greasy fries etc. in the high end of the trough in the kitchen, all floating on a river of gravy. Give the kids cheap plastic forks to stab out passing morsels.
Then, kids pay - not to eat, but for their placement along the trough. They pay more for being close to the place where the food originates, and progressively less as they go towards the further end. The kids who cannot pay anything go to the very end. Of course, those towards the end get the less desireable bits, have to deal with half-eaten chunks etc. and everything is colder and more congealed.
The trough method serves many purposes: it ensures everyone is fed, it saves the school money (as it surely costs less to maintain a single trough than to serve individual portions), and it acts as a useful allegory for our social system while teaching children the value of money and social hierarchy. :)
It also serves a health objective, as (i) it forces kids to exercise while they are fighting for a spot at the trough, (2) it puts the fat, slow kids on a diet-of-necessity as they are beaten to the trough by stronger, more fit kids.
Quote from: Malthus on March 08, 2012, 09:49:19 AM
Naw, the fighting thing has less real-world applications.
You haven't been to a Polish law school. Just saying.
Faggots will go to any length to endorse faggity thinness.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2012, 12:38:14 PM
Faggots will go to any length to endorse faggity thinness.
I'm fat. :(
Quote from: Martinus on March 08, 2012, 12:39:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2012, 12:38:14 PM
Faggots will go to any length to endorse faggity thinness.
I'm fat. :(
I know. You're an old queen. It's what happens. :hug:
There, there. There, there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2012, 08:51:29 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2012, 08:50:02 AM
for example how many kids on free school meals get into Oxbridge.
How many? Curious.
Hamilcar's servant forgot to put the cream cheese on his bagel once.
Quote from: Martinus on March 08, 2012, 12:36:24 PM
It also serves a health objective, as (i) it forces kids to exercise while they are fighting for a spot at the trough, (2) it puts the fat, slow kids on a diet-of-necessity as they are beaten to the trough by stronger, more fit kids.
I'm not sure it would work that well. In school, few kids are athletic enough to take advantage of slimness. Typically, fat kids are the strongest ones, up to a point. Under the fight system for the trough position, the equilibrium is probably going to settle on "pretty fat".
Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2012, 01:16:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 08, 2012, 12:36:24 PM
It also serves a health objective, as (i) it forces kids to exercise while they are fighting for a spot at the trough, (2) it puts the fat, slow kids on a diet-of-necessity as they are beaten to the trough by stronger, more fit kids.
I'm not sure it would work that well. In school, few kids are athletic enough to take advantage of slimness. Typically, fat kids are the strongest ones, up to a point. Under the fight system for the trough position, the equilibrium is probably going to settle on "pretty fat".
Fat kids have no endurance. They might be have more body mass and so will be harder to move but assuming the trough is implemented correctly and the kids are required to run for the trough that advantage will be reduced and perhaps eliminated.
:lmfao:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 08, 2012, 01:23:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2012, 01:16:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 08, 2012, 12:36:24 PM
It also serves a health objective, as (i) it forces kids to exercise while they are fighting for a spot at the trough, (2) it puts the fat, slow kids on a diet-of-necessity as they are beaten to the trough by stronger, more fit kids.
I'm not sure it would work that well. In school, few kids are athletic enough to take advantage of slimness. Typically, fat kids are the strongest ones, up to a point. Under the fight system for the trough position, the equilibrium is probably going to settle on "pretty fat".
Fat kids have no endurance. They might be have more body mass and so will be harder to move but assuming the trough is implemented correctly and the kids are required to run for the trough that advantage will be reduced and perhaps eliminated.
but the fat kids have more incentive. they're hungry :P
The kids get a full free breakfast now too. Not just lunch.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 08, 2012, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2012, 08:51:29 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2012, 08:50:02 AM
for example how many kids on free school meals get into Oxbridge.
How many? Curious.
Hamilcar's servant forgot to put the cream cheese on his bagel once.
clotted cream, you colonial.