Should people be made work for the Dole?

Betsy Og said:
I agree with current proposals that you either undertake retraining or attend interviews/take jobs or else your benefits are cut. Its supposed to be jobseekers allowance, not wages for nothing.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that we are in a recession? My husband has been redundant for over a year now. He is educated to Masters level and has 11 years experience in his industry so is ineligible for any retraining schemes, as he simply could not be educated to the same level in anything that is on offer.

He has attended interviews, and largely is turned down because he is so experienced (presumably they think he will run at the first opportunity). He most recently attended an interview where the salary was 1/4 of his previous salary (needs must) to be told on the phone a week later that he was not being offered the job because the person who would be working with the new staff member preferred to work with a woman. Mostly he does not even get a response to any job application. He trawls the job websites, FAS's website, newspapers daily looking for work.

If he was offered any job he would take it, but he hasnt been offered any job.

Edited to add - broadly I do agree with cutting benefits after a time period, but in the current economic environment I just dont see how people are expected to be able to find jobs quickly - any jobs! However, there was no excuse for people claiming dole during the boom years when there were jobs for all available.
 
Truthseeker - as he's going to the interviews then he's playing his part. If he wasnt trying at all then that would be the problem.

p.s. I know of a slightly different scenario of someone with lots of qualification but due to health issues are not really in a position to do the job they trained for - they decided in the end to "dumb down" their CV. So maybe that's an option?, a bit counter-intuitive but might keep things ticking over.
 
Betsy Og said:
PRSI will protect people (to some extent) for the first 12 months - you get higher benefits because of your contributions.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is not true anymore.

JSB = 188pw

JSA = 188pw

Most countries pay more in UI than in social assistance, but not us.
 
This subject was already discussed at length on this forum. The subject is old hat.

I remember when I was unemployed when many informed me that I should be clearing supermarket trolleys from rivers, painting old peoples' homes, delivering meals-on-wheels and cleaning the effluent of the affluent etc.

I was not unemployed for long. However, the people who were asserting themselves against the vulnerable unemployed found themselves unemployed in time. I reminded them of what they said and how I felt. Amazing, how people change their minds when they find themselves going to the labour exchange.
 
+1 thats very true.
 
I think the types people (well me anyway) begrudge paying welfare to are those:

-who never worked or tried to get a job
-have free housing and keep it looking like a kip
-who have kids so they can get on a housing list
-no interest in health so will clog our hospitals in due course
-are represented highly in our crime stats
-have no value on what they are given

OK thats all very right wing, but is it untrue/unfair? I know there are inter-generational issues (3rd generation at the same craic, know no better etc.) but I think there needs to be some shock to the system that they need to 'play ball' with the State because taxpayers are sick of subsidising a lifestyle choice that costs us at every turn. For instance I think convictions should lead to a drop in welfare payments - at the moment there's a cohort who are 'untouchable' - we need to give them something to think about.

All the above is a world away from people who have worked, are anxious to get back working, and dont engage in the above listed. We're not talking about cancelling welfare, just putting a system in place where you get paid welfare if you play by the rules - the rules being law abiding and actually available for work.
 

I'm not one usually for the softer approaches such as education and would in general favour just reducing the dole on a phased basis and letting people work it out for themselves. However, sadly, people with this outlook on life exist in every country. Where benefits are less, I would imagine an increase in crime, black economy activities would rise and the children/vulnerable would suffer even more. No easy win, but it's hard for anyone to justify that benefits should be higher than a minimum wage job.

I had an interesting conversation with a work colleague last week about this. One thing he mentioned was that if these people cannot take money from the state they will take it from you!
 
That's preposterous !!
He should get that in writing and shout it from the rooftops.
Sexual discrimination of that sort is unacceptable (unless you're a man).
 
Pique318 said:
That's preposterous !!
He should get that in writing and shout it from the rooftops.
Sexual discrimination of that sort is unacceptable (unless you're a man).
Click to expand...

Im surprised youre the only person who picked up on that. Yes, its preposterous - and illegal.

He isnt bothered taking it further (he knows he could sue the guy and probably win), but he says that the job really isnt worth it (the salary was practically minimum wage), they seemed unprofessional anyway because when he arrived for interview the guy told him 'oh I forgot you were coming in' and the comment was made in the context of consoling him for not getting the job, as in "seriously, everything about you as a candidate was wonderful - its not you, its the other person in the office, she wanted to work with a woman, you know yourself *har de har man to man you know yourself these bloody women*"

*the bit in between the asterixes was made up by me
 
The_Banker said:
Would you apply this to someone who was laid off after 25 years of working for a company who went to the wall during the financial crisis and paid his/her PAYE taxes and PRSI social insurance over those 25 years?
Click to expand...
The problem is that the person who worked for 25 years paid into a ponzi scheme. He didn't pay into a fund or had some of his contributions set aside. He paid for other people's welfare payments at the time. It is the system that is in place that needs a complete overhaul.

They introduced such a system in Germany a good few years ago and not surprisingly it resulted in lots of people returning to work at wages they otherwise would not have accepted. It also got people off their backsides and got unskilled people into at least some sort of job where they could learn something. However, as Firefly points out this would require a large amount of bureaucracy, which would take too long to put in place given the problems that Ireland is facing.


I think that this would be the better approach for Ireland as it is something that can be quickly implemented without the need for more bureaucracy. For Ireland the biggest problem is that people get more through welfare than through the minimum wage and they get this indefinitely. This means that there is exactly zero incentive to learn anything or take any kind of job.
There should also be a limit to the length of time you can receive payments. I think someone posted here before about Switzerland where after 18 months you get nothing from the state. After that you have to go to family and community charities, and yet Switzerland is not exactly known for hordes of families sleeping under bridges and begging for scraps of food. Government welfare increases and encourages poverty, it is not the solution to it.
 

Yet Switzerland sees fit to hold its first ever National Conference on Poverty less than 18 months ago

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_n...have_a_real_poverty_problem.html?cid=28787926
 
DB74 said:
Yet Switzerland sees fit to hold its first ever National Conference on Poverty less than 18 months ago

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_n...have_a_real_poverty_problem.html?cid=28787926
Click to expand...

You're hardly trying to say that the claim of one catholic charity, with a vested interest to exaggerate poverty, provides any reliable facts? The definition of poverty is also completely meaningless, Caritas defines poverty here: http://www.caritas-europa.org/module/FileLib/PovertyhasfacesinEuropeweb.pdf
Statistically, people are considered to be living below the poverty line when their income is less than 50% of the median disposable income in the country.
Click to expand...
But this is completely meaningless. You could be living in splendour if the average wage was €100,000, but still be classed as living in poverty. Using this definition poverty will never decline, which of course is convenient for organizations looking for state funding.

I've been to Switzerland, and one thing I noticed was the lack of homeless people begging (of which I saw none) and the usual signs of poverty common in large cities. Doesn't mean that there is none, but it is far less than other countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register