# Get the Unemployed to do unpaid Community Work



## Leper (24 Jun 2010)

Just listening to Morning Ireland on RTE Radio 1. Leo Crawford president of IBEC informed us that people need to be working and our unemployed should be engaged in unpaid community work while waiting for a job.

I love these people great at running other peoples lives and they cant run their own. One thing is certain, if Crawford and his ilk ever become unemployed, they wont be painting old peoples homes or cleaning out rivers.

Then the real content of his interview, we need people earning and spending for the improvement of our profits.


----------



## Mucker Man (24 Jun 2010)

I think he specifically said long term unemployed should do community work and I have to agree with him.


----------



## RMCF (24 Jun 2010)

Some of the genuine long term unemployed might actually look forward to this.

I'm sure sitting in the house all day doing nothing is soul destroying to those who really want to work. Might be different for work-shy layabouts though, ot those with a little job on the side.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2010)

Leper said:


> Then the real content of his interview, we need people earning and spending for the improvement of our profits.



Take the chip off your shoulder. Economic activity is what generated taxes which pay for public services and infrastructure. You should be delighted at the prospect of his members making more money.


----------



## Yorrick (24 Jun 2010)

There were several Fas schemes which cated for long term unemployed by chanelling them in to various community support schemes. Many of the schemes were only 10/15 hours per week but it did get people back into a work eenvironment and even from a social aspect it made people feel that they were contributing to the community. I know a few people who were on such scheems and then did so well that they were offered full time positions not funded by taxpayers


----------



## Latrade (24 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> Take the chip off your shoulder. Economic activity is what generated taxes which pay for public services and infrastructure. You should be delighted at the prospect of his members making more money.


 
+ 1, but it does have a whiff of the unemployed being a blight on the country as if it's the unemployed's fault and their choice. Sort of "set them to work rather than sitting on their backsides". I know a few friends who are unfortunately unemployed now, vast majority are doing everything they can to get back to work, taking any job and also putting themselves through extra education (paid by themselves) and night school, but a couple are content with their redundancy, X Box and a bit of an extended holiday. 

There's plenty that could be done as a public service, but we have to be careful we don't make it a chain gang type of operation, we have plenty of prisoners we could use for that.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2010)

I agree Latrade.


----------



## Chocks away (24 Jun 2010)

Was at a village in Kerry earlier this week and (unemployed) volunteers were painting the outsides of old houses that had been neglected. Also weeding, planting and watering communal flowers. These people 'worked' about 19 hours per week and their unemployment money was the reward. I spoke to a few. They were enthusiastic and civilly minded and realised that the work that they were doing was important to the village and also for their own mental wellbeing. A great idea according to all.


----------



## Complainer (24 Jun 2010)

Chocks away said:


> A great idea according to all.


Did you ask the local painters/decorators what they thought of the idea?


----------



## Leper (25 Jun 2010)

I don't agree with the thought in principle, however I could be persuaded somewhat if the entire (and I mean entire) members of the unemployed would be subject to the exact same rules.

Let's face it, any of the more intelligent posters here know that its the Joe Soaps would be doing the community work and not the darlings of the boom.

Just last week there were discussions concerning people being removed from the Social Welfare payments if they refused PAID jobs. I would love to see some Yuppie unemployed person working in a Take-Away on (or on lessthan) the minimum wage.

But, some of you guys believe you will never see a poor day . . . Then we will see who has chips on their shoulders.


----------



## Firefly (25 Jun 2010)

Complainer said:


> Did you ask the local painters/decorators what they thought of the idea?


 
I'd imagine they're happy. The volunteers were painting neglected houses and weeding communal flowers - this work was obviouisly not being done anyway. The result will be an overall lift to the village and who knows, the other inhabitants might take more pride in their area and contact a painter/decorator to get their own house painted.


----------



## callybags (25 Jun 2010)

Leper said:


> I don't agree with the thought in principle, however I could be persuaded somewhat if the entire (and I mean entire) members of the unemployed would be subject to the exact same rules.
> 
> Let's face it, any of the more intelligent posters here know that its the Joe Soaps would be doing the community work and not the darlings of the boom.
> 
> ...


 
What a nasty, bitter post.


----------



## Complainer (25 Jun 2010)

Firefly said:


> I'd imagine they're happy. The volunteers were painting neglected houses and weeding communal flowers - this work was obviouisly not being done anyway. The result will be an overall lift to the village and who knows, the other inhabitants might take more pride in their area and contact a painter/decorator to get their own house painted.


I'd imagine they are not happy. They've certainly lost potential business, and if people are getting work done for free, this will drive down rates for other jobs. Why should one person be getting the dole for painting (simply because they've had the misfortune to lose their job) and another person is getting commercial rates for the same work?

Anyone who wants to do volunteer work can do so without affecting their dole, by arrangement with DSFP. If the work needs to be done, why don't we fund the work properly and pay people a decent day's wage, instead of exploiting their difficult situation to get work done on the cheap?


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2010)

Complainer said:


> If the work needs to be done, why don't we fund the work and pay people a decent day's wage?



“A fair days pay for a fair days work!” shades of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Actually I kind of agree with Complainer on this. I’m not against community work by unemployed people but I don’t think it should be compulsory and the powers that be should be very careful not to undermine an existing commercial sector.  
If the work is funded and those doing it are existing contractors I do think the pay should be at the low end of the going rate, if not slightly below it.


----------



## TarfHead (25 Jun 2010)

Everyone should get involved in community work - picking up litter, youth clubs, Scouts, Guides, sports coaching, etc.

There's too much complaining and waiting for someone else to get something done.

In paid employment or not, most of us can spare an hour or two a week or month to leave something looking better than it was.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2010)

TarfHead said:


> Everyone should get involved in community work - picking up litter, youth clubs, Scouts, Guides, sports coaching, etc.
> 
> There's too much complaining and waiting for someone else to get something done.
> 
> In paid employment or not, most of us can spare an hour or two a week or month to leave something looking better than it was.



I agree with that. One of the guys in work got into a row with his neighbour because he was cutting the grass on the verge outside his house. The neighbour said he was "doing another mans job". Where I live we have a residents association who pays to have the common areas looked after. We also have a general clean-up a few times a year. I see no reason why tax payers money should be wasted doing things that people can and should do for themselves. 
Getting people on welfare to carry out work which is normally done and paid for by the private sector is different.


----------



## Yorrick (25 Jun 2010)

Complainer 
Frequent Poster
 Location: South Dublin
Posts: 2,941 



Quote:
Originally Posted by *Chocks away* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1054419#post1054419 
_A great idea according to all._

Did you ask the local painters/decorators what they thought of the idea? 



"  Did you ask the local painters/decorators what they thought of the idea? "


Do you mean the lads who didn't have the courtesy to return calls during the boom or were not interested in small jobs like painting halls/stairs landings when they could get big money looking after their builder contracts ?


----------



## TarfHead (25 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> We also have a general clean-up a few times a year.


 
Ditto. The activity in our area was prompted by a US woman who got tired of the state of the common areas and had enough 'get up and go' about her to mobilise others who felt the same, but whose innate inertia was stronger.


----------



## Yorrick (25 Jun 2010)

There are a number of towns around the country organising regular clean ups. I thnk this may have been prompted by the Dirty Town League tables which embarassed concerned citizens in to organising clean ups.
Local Authoprities don't seem to have the funding for this work. It is amazing the amount of rubbish that is dumped on streets and raodways


----------



## Complainer (25 Jun 2010)

Yorrick said:


> There are a number of towns around the country organising regular clean ups. I thnk this may have been prompted by the Dirty Town League tables which embarassed concerned citizens in to organising clean ups.
> Local Authoprities don't seem to have the funding for this work. It is amazing the amount of rubbish that is dumped on streets and raodways


Many local authorities actively support these initiatives;

[broken link removed]


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2010)

TarfHead said:


> Ditto. The activity in our area was prompted by a US woman who got tired of the state of the common areas and had enough 'get up and go' about her to mobilise others who felt the same, but whose innate inertia was stronger.



The Americans are brilliant at that sort of thing.


----------



## TarfHead (25 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> Where I live we have a residents association who pays to have the common areas looked after.


 
Where I live, Fingal County Council look after the maintenance of common areas.

This year, they announced that they would be allowing specified common areas to grow wild to foster the development of 'meadow plants'. Those areas are now a haven for dandelions, with the council trimming the edges and, in some cases, cutting a path through the middle.

Whatever about the intention, it looks terrible and is viewed as a weak attempt to make a virtue out of saving money through not continuing with their responsibilities.

Fortunately, an effective lobby campaign has succeeded, and the Council have reversed the decision.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2010)

Why don’t the locals get out and look after their own common areas?
If they were it would be less likely that they would be vandalised.


----------



## liaconn (25 Jun 2010)

To go back to the original topic - during the boom years when I knew of several perfectly healthy fit people sitting back and claiming unemployment benefit, I would certainly have agreed they should have been made get up off their lazy a*ses and do something for the community.
But nowadays we have thousands of people who have worked hard, paid their stamps and been let go from their jobs totally against their will. I really don't think it would be fair to add to their misery by forcing them to go out and do menial jobs to 'earn' their benefit. Many of them will, of course, seek voluntary work themselves in order to do something with their time. But they will probably volunteer for something they feel will give them some satisfaction, or an area where their skills might be useful.


----------



## Complainer (25 Jun 2010)

liaconn said:


> To go back to the original topic - during the boom years when I knew of several perfectly healthy fit people sitting back and claiming unemployment benefit, I would certainly have agreed they should have been made get up off their lazy a*ses and do something for the community.


I would disagree with this solution, even in the boom times. If people are abusing the welfare system by avoiding work when work is available, then cut them off, within the appropriate terms and conditions. If there is work to be done, then give people the dignity of a job and a living wage.


----------



## Sunny (25 Jun 2010)

Complainer said:


> I would disagree with this solution, even in the boom times. If people are abusing the welfare system by avoiding work when work is available, then cut them off, within the appropriate terms and conditions. If there is work to be done, then give people the dignity of a job and a living wage.


 
Yeah I agree.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> Yeah I agree.



So do I... it was bound to happen some time


----------



## Sunny (25 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> So do I... it was bound to happen some time


 
I know. Feels almost dirty!


----------



## Firefly (25 Jun 2010)

Complainer said:


> I would disagree with this solution, even in the boom times. If people are abusing the welfare system by avoiding work when work is available, then cut them off, within the appropriate terms and conditions. *If there is work to be done, then give people the dignity of a job and a living wage*.


 
Almost a +1 for me too.. but this implies that there is money in the kitty for this and our national debt should remain in tact. Sorry


----------



## Complainer (25 Jun 2010)

Firefly said:


> but this implies that there is money in the kitty for this and our national debt should remain in tact. Sorry


Yes, this is the reality, but;

- there is some money in the kitty, because it is being used to pay SW to these folk
- most of the money paid out will 'recycle', and will generate some tax income (VAT, spends on basic services etc). This is the arguement used to justify the new supports being given to employers.


----------



## pinkyBear (25 Jun 2010)

> I would disagree with this solution, even in the boom times. If people are abusing the welfare system by avoiding work when work is available, then cut them off, within the appropriate terms and conditions. If there is work to be done, then give people the dignity of a job and a living wage.


 
Here, here well said


----------



## Firefly (25 Jun 2010)

Complainer said:


> Yes, this is the reality, but;
> 
> - there is some money in the kitty, because it is being used to pay SW to these folk
> - most of the money paid out will 'recycle', and will generate some tax income (VAT, spends on basic services etc). This is the arguement used to justify the new supports being given to employers.


 
I agree but there needs to be a balance. Regarding unemployment (and maybe this is one for the great financial debates), I believe that some unemployment (3-5%) is actually a good thing as it creates competition at the bottom that works its way up.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2010)

Firefly said:


> I believe that some unemployment (3-5%) is actually a good thing as it creates competition at the bottom that works its way up.


 Yes, it increases mobility and keeps wage inflation down. Very important in an open export focused economy like ours.


----------



## Complainer (25 Jun 2010)

Firefly said:


> I agree but there needs to be a balance. Regarding unemployment (and maybe this is one for the great financial debates), I believe that some unemployment (3-5%) is actually a good thing as it creates competition at the bottom that works its way up.


Has any developed economy EVER had full employment?


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2010)

Complainer said:


> Has any developed economy EVER had full employment?



Only socialist ones like the Soviet Union and North Korea


----------



## Leper (25 Jun 2010)

Yes Callybags, a nasty and bitter post from me.  But, unfortunately it is the truth.And if I caused offence, well tough!


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2010)

Leper said:


> Yes Callybags, a nasty and bitter post from me.  But, unfortunately it is the truth.And if I caused offence, well tough!



No it's not. It was just nasty and bitter. Chip - shoulder - remove.


----------



## sunrock (26 Jun 2010)

This idea of unemployed people doing community work will only apply to less educated people. People with qualifications can refuse this type of work because they have a degree or whatever.That is in the social welfare regulations.
I however am in favour of the idea,but we must have fairness and common sense.
 For example we have the teachers and their unions complaining about large class sizes.At the same time we have a large number of unemployed teachers looking for a teaching job.Surely it would not be too hard to put the unemployed teachers working for even 2 to 3 days a week in the schools for their dole money or a bit more.The existing teachers unlike the aforementioned painters would not suffer a cut in their pay or hours, yet of course they would oppose this measure tooth and nail showing up their hypocritical concerns about large class sizes.
This could be replicated across the health services as well and many other areas.
We really need the government to get the finger out and implement this measure wherever possible. 
I am not suggesting any coercion in making people who don`t want to work,go to work.But with 400k + people unemployed, ther are many young qualified people keen to work. Even 25% would be 100,000 eager workers.


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2010)

sunrock said:


> This idea of unemployed people doing community work will only apply to less educated people. People with qualifications can refuse this type of work because they have a degree or whatever.That is in the social welfare regulations.
> I however am in favour of the idea,but we must have fairness and common sense.


If the people with degrees can't get a job they shouldn't be treated any differently from those who don't as their degree is of no use in the job market.


----------



## RMCF (26 Jun 2010)

liaconn said:


> To go back to the original topic - during the boom years when I knew of several perfectly healthy fit people sitting back and claiming unemployment benefit, I would certainly have agreed they should have been made get up off their lazy a*ses and do something for the community.
> *But nowadays we have thousands of people who have worked hard, paid their stamps and been let go from their jobs totally against their will. I really don't think it would be fair to add to their misery by forcing them to go out and do menial jobs to 'earn' their benefit.* Many of them will, of course, seek voluntary work themselves in order to do something with their time. But they will probably volunteer for something they feel will give them some satisfaction, or an area where their skills might be useful.



But that could easily be addressed as I am sure they would not need every single unemployed person in Ireland to help, so why not start with those longest on the dole? Thsi way it will not hit those who were busy workign over the last few years, and it will also catch those who were unemployed while this country was booming and there was loads of jobs for all.

If you are fit and healthy and able to work, and have been unemployed for say 5 years, then you are just a work-shy layabout (imho).


----------



## Chocks away (27 Jun 2010)

Complainer said:


> Did you ask the local painters/decorators what they thought of the idea?


In a village of less than 150 souls, the ratio of professional painters is somewhat small. But as most of the lived-in houses were being painted by owners/professionals, I thought that any nefarious questions might have been against the spirit of the whole thing. Something that you don't seem to get. Surely there must be an antidote to your angst. Or do you revel in being miserable .......... no need to answer.


----------



## Leper (27 Jun 2010)

Sunrock hit the nail on the head - university qualified people will not be required to clean the effluent of the affluent.  Love it. This taken to the n-th degree would indicate that universiy qualified people should not serve time for crime either.  A bit obtuce, I know, but relevant.

And Purple, your call for my post to be removed.  I have no doubt you can argue well for free speech . . . unfortunately, the truth hurts. And TOUGH!!


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2010)

Leper said:


> And Purple, your call for my post to be removed.  I have no doubt you can argue well for free speech . . . unfortunately, the truth hurts. And TOUGH!!


 Read - post - again.


----------



## sunrock (27 Jun 2010)

What I find misleading is politicians and posters suggesting ways to get the long term unemployed, people with disabilities, people with no education,etc back into the workforce. This is a big red herring  as these same politicians show no such concern to get the young eager qualified,eminently employabe unemployed back to work.
Another ruse is to threaten to raise the pension age so people would work till they are 70.


----------



## Complainer (27 Jun 2010)

Chocks away said:


> In a village of less than 150 souls, the ratio of professional painters is somewhat small. But as most of the lived-in houses were being painted by owners/professionals, I thought that any nefarious questions might have been against the spirit of the whole thing. Something that you don't seem to get. Surely there must be an antidote to your angst. Or do you revel in being miserable .......... no need to answer.


Maybe Bertie was right all along - those who want to question things should just go and kill themselves instead. Let's just  be ruled by the prevailing school of thought at the Sindo or the Daily Mail or whatever right-wing media outlet tells us what to do.


----------



## liaconn (28 Jun 2010)

RMCF said:


> But that could easily be addressed as I am sure they would not need every single unemployed person in Ireland to help, so why not start with those longest on the dole? Thsi way it will not hit those who were busy workign over the last few years, and it will also catch those who were unemployed while this country was booming and there was loads of jobs for all.
> 
> If you are fit and healthy and able to work, and have been unemployed for say 5 years, then you are just a work-shy layabout (imho).


 
My point exactly. 
Re complainer's point about the dignity of a job and a living wage, I don't see where I said otherwise.


----------



## micmclo (28 Jun 2010)

A lot of parishes have a tidy towns committee, residents do all sort of flower displays, gardening and painting and they don't get paid for it.
The scheme might work but it's not really necessary in a lot of places, we have it already from volunteers 



sunrock said:


> For example we have the teachers and their unions complaining about large class sizes.At the same time we have a large number of unemployed teachers looking for a teaching job.Surely it would not be too hard to put the unemployed teachers working for even 2 to 3 days a week in the schools for their dole money or a bit more.The existing teachers unlike the aforementioned painters would not suffer a cut in their pay or hours, yet of course they would oppose this measure tooth and nail showing up their hypocritical concerns about large class sizes.



Oh I can hear the cries about race to the bottom already!
So it will probably never happen, too much opposition


----------



## Complainer (28 Jun 2010)

sunrock said:


> For example we have the teachers and their unions complaining about large class sizes.At the same time we have a large number of unemployed teachers looking for a teaching job.Surely it would not be too hard to put the unemployed teachers working for even 2 to 3 days a week in the schools for their dole money or a bit more.The existing teachers unlike the aforementioned painters would not suffer a cut in their pay or hours, yet of course they would oppose this measure tooth and nail showing up their hypocritical concerns about large class sizes.


So you want to have two teachers, working side by side in the same school, doing the same work. One is paid a full professional salary, and the other is paid subsistence-level dole for doing the same work? The second teacher is punished simply for having the misfortune to find themselves unemployed.


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2010)

Complainer said:


> So you want to have two teachers, working side by side in the same school, doing the same work. One is paid a full professional salary, and the other is paid subsistence-level dole for doing the same work? The second teacher is punished simply for having the misfortune to find themselves unemployed.



Or maybe the second teacher is punished because the first teacher is paid so much that the state can't afford to pay the second one properly.
I do agree though; it would be an untenable situation. The grossly inflated salaries in teaching have to be addressed for the sake of the education system and the countries future but that's not the way to do it.


----------



## Chocks away (28 Jun 2010)

Complainer said:


> Maybe Bertie was right all along - those who want to question things should just go and kill themselves instead. Let's just be ruled by the prevailing school of thought at the Sindo or the Daily Mail or whatever right-wing media outlet tells us what to do.


Anything exciting in The Morning Star or Grauniad recently?


----------



## sunrock (29 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> Or maybe the second teacher is punished because the first teacher is paid so much that the state can't afford to pay the second one properly.
> I do agree though; it would be an untenable situation. The grossly inflated salaries in teaching have to be addressed for the sake of the education system and the countries future but that's not the way to do it.


 
Well it is a start in having an extra badly needed teacher in the school at no extra cost to the state.You could have 2 unemployed teachers doing 2 to 3 days work in the week for their dole. It is voluntary so the  "unemployed teacher" is happy. The existing high paid teacher should have nothing to complain about.
Of course teachers salaries should be much lower and unemployed teachers,maybe after a stint of voluntary teaching brought on to the permanent staff.


----------



## DublinTexas (29 Jun 2010)

I always wonder in which dreamland people live who think that 100% employment is possible. Sure if we try the communist experiment we might on paper reach that.

There will always be those who cannot find a job and it’s the state’s responsibility to take care of them if they genuine try to get a job.

For those who are not really seeking a new job we need to cut the benefits but those who seek should get benefits.

It would be an idea to allow unemployed people to work in areas where there is a staff shortage and people with minimum training can be used for the social good of the overall population (meals on wheels, looking after the elderly etc.) but as it is in other countries in those circumstances, a higher benefit should be paid. Rewarding people for trying to get back in the labour market and not sitting at home watching telly the whole day.


----------



## Complainer (29 Jun 2010)

sunrock said:


> Well it is a start in having an extra badly needed teacher in the school at no extra cost to the state.You could have 2 unemployed teachers doing 2 to 3 days work in the week for their dole. It is voluntary so the  "unemployed teacher" is happy. The existing high paid teacher should have nothing to complain about.
> Of course teachers salaries should be much lower and unemployed teachers,maybe after a stint of voluntary teaching brought on to the permanent staff.


So should we look for volunteer nurses, and volunteer accountants, and volunteer lawyers to work for the state for free as well?


----------



## MANTO (30 Jun 2010)

Does it get to the point that there are so many volunteers, there won't be any need to advertise permanent jobs?


----------



## sunrock (30 Jun 2010)

Complainer said:


> So should we look for volunteer nurses, and volunteer accountants, and volunteer lawyers to work for the state for free as well?


 
These people are not volunteering to work for nothing .They would be doing for example 2 days work a week in their chosen qualification, and gaining valuable experience in the process and still receiving their dole money. In the real world ,unemployed qualified people especially recently qualied, are desperate to get some experience. So if there is a demand for their work, what is the problem with that? Of course ther will be opposition from well paid professionals, who will be uneasy when they realise that people with the same qualifications would prefer to work for less than sit around doing nothing.


----------



## Complainer (30 Jun 2010)

I haven't heard of a mad clamour from unemployed people to work for nothing in schools. Of course, many people, both employed and unemployed, already work for nothing in their communities, on tidy towns and GAA clubs and other voluntary and community groups. There is no shortage of volunteering opportunities for those who need them. But to suggest that it now becomes the norm that unemployed people will be working for the dole is crazy. What's the betting that the funding provided to schools just happens to get cut by the equivalent of the zero cost resources in the next year's budget?


----------



## Firefly (1 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> What's the betting that the funding provided to schools just happens to get cut by the equivalent of the zero cost resources in the next year's budget?


 
What's the betting that the unions would have pickets outside every school within an hour to stop unemployed teachers crossing the picket?


----------



## sunrock (1 Jul 2010)

Our buisness leaders and policy makers are always praising the benefits of a flexible labour force. Workers in the hospitality industry,other private low paid work and employees of multinationals have no unions and have flexible working practises. These have given  a lot of oppurtunity to young eager workers.
However in a public service like teaching, one have the scenario of permanent very high paid teachers and unemployed teachers on the dole with no hope of employment because of the public service embargo.This at a time of serious teacher shortages and very high teacher pupil ratios.I made a humble rough proposal suggesting  a way that unemployed teachers could teach for 2 days a week for their dole or maybe a little more.
I am disappointed with posters opposition to my pragmation solution. These fall into 2 camps
First that existing teachers salaries or sensibilities will be undermined
secondly that the teachers from the unemployed ranks will be exploited...in working 2 days for their dole money on a voluntary basis


----------



## Sunny (1 Jul 2010)

sunrock said:


> Our buisness leaders and policy makers are always praising the benefits of a flexible labour force. Workers in the hospitality industry,other private low paid work and employees of multinationals have no unions and have flexible working practises. These have given a lot of oppurtunity to young eager workers.
> However in a public service like teaching, one have the scenario of permanent very high paid teachers and unemployed teachers on the dole with no hope of employment because of the public service embargo.This at a time of serious teacher shortages and very high teacher pupil ratios.I made a humble rough proposal suggesting a way that unemployed teachers could teach for 2 days a week for their dole or maybe a little more.
> I am disappointed with posters opposition to my pragmation solution. These fall into 2 camps
> First that existing teachers salaries or sensibilities will be undermined
> secondly that the teachers from the unemployed ranks will be exploited...in working 2 days for their dole money on a voluntary basis


 
It's not a bad idea in helping young teachers get experience. The problem is and this happens in every company I have worked in, the company gets used to have these teachers doing jobs and therefore never fill the role with permanent staff even if the work is there for one.


----------



## Purple (1 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> It's not a bad idea in helping young teachers get experience. The problem is and this happens in every company I have worked in, the company gets used to have these teachers doing jobs and therefore never fill the role with permanent staff even if the work is there for one.


 Then the long term cost to the state is reduced. How is that a bad thing?


----------



## sunrock (1 Jul 2010)

FAS always have loads of "trainees" going around to companies offering to work for companies for nothing. Thus an unemployed person if applying to the company  for work off his own bat is at a serious disadvantage.Also I would have to agree that the company will take advantage of this and even permanent staff are under pressure.However it helped create a very competitive private sector.
The situation in  the public service is different in that the state has total control and can set the rules and enforce them. There may be a 2 tier whereby permanent staff are paid more than tempory staff,until such time as one rate can be agreed.
Its incredible how the government has billions to spend in bailing out the banks but can be penny pitching in services to our sick,children and elderly.


----------



## Firefly (1 Jul 2010)

sunrock said:


> The situation in the public service is different in that the *unions *have total control and can set the rules and enforce them.


----------



## Deiseblue (1 Jul 2010)

Nonsense , if such was the case PS employees wouldn't have suffered two pay cuts.


----------



## sunrock (1 Jul 2010)

Hi Firefly
....the *unions* have total control    You have misquoted me. I presume that is your personal opinion.

my quote is that the state i.e. the government has the ultimate control.


----------



## Purple (1 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Nonsense , if such was the case PS employees wouldn't have suffered two pay cuts.



Eh?


----------



## Firefly (2 Jul 2010)

sunrock said:


> Hi Firefly
> ....the *unions* have total control You have misquoted me. I presume that is your personal opinion.
> 
> my quote is that the state i.e. the government has the ultimate control.


 
Sorry, didn't mean to mis-quote you - was highlighting who I thought has control & should have created a new sentence


----------



## browtal (2 Jul 2010)

Great idea. I remember my grandparents telling us about the Famine.  Roads, called New Line, were built during these times and the workers fed as reward for their work but they impressed that they could have been fed but their dignity had to be preserved so they were given work. 
Never thought about it before but now that I have a grown up's mind great excuse to get people to work. Browtal


----------



## sunrock (3 Jul 2010)

The famine roads work scheme had more in common with "arbeit macht frei" in that starving people who had no money or income were given the choice of meaningless but hard work or starvation.If they had been put to work growing cabbages it would have made more sense.


----------



## bskinti (4 Jul 2010)

Look at the big picture and ask yourself a few questions, Are we paying enough tax and insurance?, Are our hospitals in enough crises?, 
Now people we want the people on welfare to work, Imagine the amount of injure claims that would hit the country Insurance would rocket and hospitals would just jam, and to pay for it all we would pay 70% tax , 
One sure way of destroying the country ,no leave them I say ,,,,,,


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2010)

bskinti said:


> Look at the big picture and ask yourself a few questions, Are we paying enough tax and insurance?, Are our hospitals in enough crises?,
> Now people we want the people on welfare to work, Imagine the amount of injure claims that would hit the country Insurance would rocket and hospitals would just jam, and to pay for it all we would pay 70% tax ,
> One sure way of destroying the country ,no leave them I say ,,,,,,



I don't understand your post.


----------

