More flexible social welfare system

[shnaek]

It occurred to me there that perhaps we should have a more flexible social welfare system, so that if the economy is in full employment then the criteria for receiving welfare is tougher than when unemployment is high. When the economy isn't in full employment the criteria are relaxed.
What do other posters think?

 

[Purple]

Might be good in theory but given that it would probably be a political decision to switch from one to the other I don't think it would work.

 

[shnaek]

Might be good in theory but given that it would probably be a political decision to switch from one to the other I don't think it would work.

How about if it was set at the the economic percentage which defines full employment?

 

[ClubMan]

It occurred to me there that perhaps we should have a more flexible social welfare system, so that if the economy is in full employment then the criteria for receiving welfare is tougher than when unemployment is high. When the economy isn't in full employment the criteria are relaxed.
What do other posters think?

What do you have in mind specifically? For example how would you vary the existing qualification criteria?

 

[shnaek]

What do you have in mind specifically? For example how would you vary the existing qualification criteria?

You could reduce the amount of time you can claim, which I believe is 15 months at the moment - correct? In reality in full employment it shouldn't take that long to get a job. Perhaps a longer commute would be necessary, or a job which isn't ideal might need to be taken as an interim measure.
Social welfare shouldn't be seen as an 'option' , a choice between a job which pays perhaps €50 more, or sitting on one's ass and taking the €50 hit instead. Social welfare should be there when you have no choice about working. Some people say we need to increase minimum wage as an 'incentive' to work - but an able bodied person should work in order to contribute to society, no matter what that work is. Why wouldn't an able bodied person be able to get a job in an economy in full employment?

 

[Welfarite]

The title of this thread should be clarified. There is much more than Jobseeker's payments involved in "Social Welfare" in this country.

If we are talking about Jobseeker's payments here, then the reality is that this paysment hides a multitude of people who are unable to work. I'm talking about the alcoholics, drug addicts, early school leavers and socially inept people in society, who rely on the "dole" to get them by every week. Employers wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. Many can't read or write and are lacking in any social skills. I have dealt with people who never ate a meal outside their own home adn never were in a bank in their lives. That is the reality for the ones left "on the dole" when the country experienced "full employment". It is the same in most states. The OP's suggestions would not work for these people.

What the OP is talking about is "proper" jobseeker's payment, payable for shorter periods with compulsory re-training for those we come out of the workforce. This would mean putting all those described above on something like an "unemployable supplement", creating yet another scheme to administer, but would probably be worth the extra cost if the "real" jobseekers were focussed upon in a positive way..

 

[csirl]

Someone once told me that c.2% of the population fit into the categories described by Welfarite - "full employment" is 2% plus whatever percentage of people are changing jobs (and have a gap between old & new) at any given time.

 

[rmelly]

I doubt that the many politicians would have the 'political courage' to introduce something like this. Imagine how it would be portrayed by the opposition and other interested parties e.g. CORI, SVP - an attack on the weakest members of our society etc etc.

 

[gradgrind]

It sounds more vindictive than economically useful. Why bother trying to shorten jobseeker queues at full employment when by definition they're as short as they can get?

 

[shnaek]

It sounds more vindictive than economically useful. Why bother trying to shorten jobseeker queues at full employment when by definition they're as short as they can get?

Shouldn't we always try to shorten jobseeker queues, assuming that most people would like to work? Just going on a suggestion purple made in another forum - that we should seek to help unemployed people (talking about long term unemployed here, or families where generations have been unemployed -not those who are ill) by incentivising work and providing training etc. - rather than making the unemployed more comfortable in their unemployed position. Nothing vindictive there. Just a topic for debate.

 

[Welfarite]

Shouldn't we always try to shorten jobseeker queues, assuming that most people would like to work? Just going on a suggestion purple made in another forum - that we should seek to help unemployed people (talking about long term unemployed here, or families where generations have been unemployed -not those who are ill) by incentivising work and providing training etc. - rather than making the unemployed more comfortable in their unemployed position. Nothing vindictive there. Just a topic for debate.

I agree. But it's the age old question. How do you "incentivise" a person of a particular mindest/background sufficiently enough to stop mthem relying on the state for money. We are coming out of a period of "full emplyment" to all intents and purposes. Yet we still "doled" out money. Why? What were FAS doing for these people? The answer is nothing. They were too busy going to work fairs in Poland to hire Polish plumbers and shifting the deckchairs at home in Ireland.

Meanwhile, the taxpayer subsidises non-English speaking people on the dole (they should have to speak the language in order to get paid state money, IMO), gives alibis to drug dealers, pays money to eighteen year olds who haven't a clue what they want to do other than "hang out" and generally feeds the unemployable population without questioning why they are unemployable.

 

[sidzer]

IMO the Dole system incentivies people not to work! People will often say If I work I will lose my medical card etc..

I think that people should have to train to recieve state money - or be available to do some community work etc.

Is it fair that some people commute and put in long back breaking days to put a roof over their heads - and may not be home in time to spend time with their families - while others who don't work get everything / house / medical / school college grants.

The estate I live in borders a council estate - on one occasion I was just home from a hard day and long commute and headed out with some neighbours to cut the grasses in the common areas. As I was cutting the strip that borders our neighbours in the council estate I looked over at one young chap who was sitting outside his house enjoying a few beers in the sunshine - The council cuts the grass in the council estate...

I know that not everyone on the dole is able to work and I feel that the state needs to be more supportive of the elderly and people with special needs. However, handing money over to abled bodied people to sit about and dishing out benefits and incentives not to seek employment - is this the best way to build a society?

 

[Purple]

Meanwhile, the taxpayer subsidises non-English speaking people on the dole (they should have to speak the language in order to get paid state money, IMO), gives alibis to drug dealers, pays money to eighteen year olds who haven't a clue what they want to do other than "hang out" and generally feeds the unemployable population without questioning why they are unemployable.

Can you explain your comment that the taxpayer "gives alibis to drug dealers"?
Why should someone have to speak English in order to get state money?

 

[Welfarite]

Can you explain your comment that the taxpayer "gives alibis to drug dealers"?
Why should someone have to speak English in order to get state money?

I mean that drug dealers, when questioned about heir lifestyle, are able to prove an income and how they "won some money on the horses", etc..

Being unable to speak Eglish restricts/prevents a person that is availing of
Jobeeker's payments to few (if any) jobs and therefore they are not entitled to such payments, IMO.
This from the FOI guidelines:

"There are many difficulties faced by a person seeking employment outside their own country, e.g. unfamiliarity with local employment opportunities, differences in required educational and training standards and in most
cases the need to have a good command of a second language.

Persons coming to Ireland to seek employment would need to have a good command of English i.e. be able to hold a conversation and fill in an application form for a job or a social welfare payment, e.g. Jobseeker's Benefit or Assistance without the aid of an interpreter.

Accordingly, special care should be taken to ensure that all EEA Nationals have genuinely come to Ireland with the intention of seeking employment as opposed to other motives such as travel, cultural, educational (improvement of English language skills), or to avail of social welfare payments not available in their state of origin or even where unemployment payments are paid at a higher rate in Ireland."

 

[Pique318]

There's far too much PC pussyfooting around on this subject.

I agree with the majority of comments regarding the metaphorical kick up the backside that people need to 'incentivise' them to go and do something for the money they get handed every week.
Community work is a good one, clean graffiti/streets/public buildings etc... You don't need a good grasp of the language to know how to do that.

However, that kind of a political decision is unlikely to be made due to the outcry that is inevitable (discriminatory, racist, anti-family etc.etc.etc.

 

[Welfarite]

There's far too much PC pussyfooting around on this subject.

I agree with the majority of comments regarding the metaphorical kick up the backside that people need to 'incentivise' them to go and do something for the money they get handed every week.
Community work is a good one, clean graffiti/streets/public buildings etc... You don't need a good grasp of the language to know how to do that.

However, that kind of a political decision is unlikely to be made due to the outcry that is inevitable (discriminatory, racist, anti-family etc.etc.etc.

I agree, but it is not on a "political decision" that it will fall.

If you recall, pre-Tiger, ther were such things as "Community Employment Schemes", which were run by voluntary/community sector to give those on th dole something to do. People were cut off the dole if they refused to go on one.

Trouble was that the community groups wanted to be able to pick and choose who they got (no layabouts need apply, basically), then they wanted the same people back onto the next 12 month scheme thus blocking others from getting a chance. In the end, it was a farce.

so while it's fine and dandy to talk about "incentivising" those on the doel, the reality can be very different.