Working for the Dole?

Spudmonkey

I was just wanted to throw this out for discussion.. Why not introduce some scheme where people can work for their dole? We have plenty of people that are well skilled and well educated and that are probably at home sitting down wondering what to do with themselves.

Can anyone see any reason why they should not be made work for their dole money? Obviously they aren't going to be getting paid as much as their employed counterparts, but surely they wouldn't mind giving something back to society?

It could possibly be tiered so that those who do more, can recieve more welfare.

I am lucky enough to be employed at the moment, but I even feel that if I wasn't, I would rather do something for my free aid, than do nothing at all!!

Anybody else got any opinions on this??

Rowley Birkin QC

I'm trying to fathom something like this myself as I'm finishing college at the moment and there isn't much happening employment wise but "working" for free for a consultancy or community group is construed as "not being available for work". Even when I pointed out that I would be available to leave the unpaid position if a paying job came up it made no difference. Silly.

Dabko

i think some (not all, before the high horsers trample me) are too god damm lazy to get out of bed in the morning, let alone work for the money.
The way alot of irish people view things is that if im not making 400-500 quid a week take home, well, whats the point.

Too soft for too long.

elpresdentde

anyone ever hear of CE schemes although i think they may have cut a lot of these even though they were not costing that much more then the dole. i don't know about the cost of materials of insurance though.

Spudmonkey

It's probably something engrained in me by my parents, not getting something for nothing.

Too soft for too long. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing a bit of work for the money for the dole.

Boston

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Obviously they aren't going to be getting paid as much as their employed counterparts, but surely they wouldn't mind giving something back to society?

If you follow your logic through, why would there be an "employed counter parts"? Why would a company pay an engineer 800 euro a week when they can get on for 200 a week euro off the state? Why should someone working "on the dole" as an engineer only receive the same amount as say someone working as an administrator? The reason this isn't done is because it's a massive disincentive to employ people and its a massive disincentive to improve your skill set. Seriously, just sit down and think it out.

You often hear people ask "why can't the people on the dole, do something for it". But it's a bad attitude, people wouldn't be working for the dole but rather working such that they get off the dole.

gwhiz

elpresdentde wrote: »

anyone ever hear of CE schemes although i think they may have cut a lot of these even though they were not costing that much more then the dole. i don't know about the cost of materials of insurance though.

Still lots of CE schemes on the FAS website. You have to be on social welfare for one year before you are allowed on the scheme. Pay is around 230 euro for 19.5 hours per week and some last for three years, maybe more depending on your age. Beats being on the dole but I know a lot of people out there would turn their nose up at these schemes.

saol alainn

Boston wrote: »

If you follow your logic through, why would there be an "employed counter parts"? Why would a company pay an engineer 800 euro a week when they can get on for 200 a week euro off the state? Why should someone working "on the dole" as an engineer only receive the same amount as say someone working as an administrator? The reason this isn't done is because it's a massive disincentive to employ people and its a massive disincentive to improve your skill set. Seriously, just sit down and think it out.

You often hear people ask "why can't the people on the dole, do something for it". But it's a bad attitude, people wouldn't be working for the dole but rather working such that they get off the dole.

Very, very true. I don't know if there already is a system/scheme in place, but maybe what could happen is that the employee is paid a portion by the state, equivalent to the dole, and the company makes up the rest, maybe even if for the first few months.

Don't know if it makes sense though. There's probably a problem with that somewhere.

saol alainn

gwhiz wrote: »

Still lots of CE schemes on the FAS website. You have to be on social welfare for one year before you are allowed on the scheme. Pay is around 230 euro for 19.5 hours per week and some last for three years, maybe more depending on your age. Beats being on the dole but I know a lot of people out there would turn their nose up at these schemes.

Yes, it's a shame that one has to be on welfare to qualify. I've asked countless times about it, because most such vacancies would suit me to a tee, but as I don't receive anything, I cannot apply. It's really unfair.

Spudmonkey

Boston wrote: »

Why would a company pay an engineer 800 euro a week when they can get on for 200 a week euro off the state? Why should someone working "on the dole" as an engineer only receive the same amount as say someone working as an administrator?

I take your point, but the problem is that a company would not be able to re-employ these people for less than the minimum wage. The social welfare would fall outside the realm of the minimum wage.

I'm not saying there are no disadvantages to this system, there probably are. I just think the problem that exists in the system at the moment, is that people on the dole have no incentive to work for their welfare, or no incentive to acquire new skills.

If there was incentive (i.e. reduce the welfare to people who aren't willing to do anything and increase it to those who are), those who are unemployed would be more willing to participate in community schemes and such.

Whats more, the longer that people are unemployed, the more the skills they have will perish, it's better to keep people occupied and working, regardless of for how much.

Boston

saol alainn wrote: »

Very, very true. I don't know if there already is a system/scheme in place, but maybe what could happen is that the employee is paid a portion by the state, equivalent to the dole, and the company makes up the rest, maybe even if for the first few months.

Don't know if it makes sense though. There's probably a problem with that somewhere.

There is a scheme whereby you can work and keep some/all your welfare. This allowes people to get part time jobs which wouldn't otherwise sustain them. This gives people A) work experience, and Hopefully leads to full time employment down the road.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I take your point, but the problem is that a company would not be able to re-employ these people for less than the minimum wage. The social welfare would fall outside the realm of the minimum wage.

Fire a guy and then higher him back next week for half the wage, paid for by the state.

I just think the problem that exists in the system at the moment, is that people on the dole have no incentive to work for their welfare, or no incentive to acquire new skills.

People shouldn't work for the Dole. You've completely missed the point of the dole if you think people should work for it. The states role is not to employ people who can't find Jobs but rather to prevent poverty. Beside that, there are massive incentives to getting off the dole, one being that you can earn (even a minimum wage) far more in a job.

If there was incentive (i.e. reduce the welfare to people who aren't willing to do anything and increase it to those who are), those who are unemployed would be more willing to participate in community schemes and such.

Erm, people who aren't willing to do anything are not given the dole. It isn't reduced, it's simply removed.

Whats more, the longer that people are unemployed, the more the skills they have will perish, it's better to keep people occupied and working, regardless of for how much.

Hence schemes which allow you to take up part time jobs and still keep some of you welfare.

The Irish Welfare system is actually pretty well thought out at this stage, and unless you're out and out breaking the law, it's hard to get something for nothing.

Spudmonkey

Boston wrote: »

Fire a guy and then higher him back next week for half the wage, paid for by the state.

Ok now you are missing the point, the state would not employ someone to work in their previous place of employment. Many peoples jobs are going, they might not be able to go back to where they were previously working. I'm talking about "employing them" in their community. Be this painting schools or just tidying up their neighbourhood!

People shouldn't work for the Dole. You've completely missed the point of the dole if you think people should work for it. The states role is not to employ people who can't find Jobs but rather to prevent poverty.

Absolutely, the purpose of the dole is to prevent poverty. But why not do something to prevent poverty? Is there some reason those poorer in society can't do something to earn their 'bread' so to speak?

Erm, people who aren't willing to do anything are not given the dole. It isn't reduced, it's simply removed.

Precisely! Your point?

Hence schemes which allow you to take up part time jobs and still keep some of you welfare.

The Irish Welfare system is actually pretty well thought out at this stage, and unless you're out and out breaking the law, it's hard to get something for nothing.

This is what I'm talking about, why not more of these schemes, I'm not denying people their right to aid, many people have been put into the situation where they can't avoid it. I'm simply saying that whats wrong with those who are physically able to earning it?

Boston

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Ok now you are missing the point, the state would not employ someone to work in their previous place of employment. Many peoples jobs are going, they might not be able to go back to where they were previously working. I'm talking about "employing them" in their community. Be this painting schools or just tidying up their neighbourhood!

The point remains, Fire a guy and hire a replacement from the state for a fraction of the cost. As for painting schools and the like, A) you'd need to train people to do that, (which is kinda counter productive if it's completely different to there current skill set) and whats the point in having someone with a degree picking up rubbish?

Absolutely, the purpose of the dole is to prevent poverty. But why not do something to prevent poverty? Is there some reason those poorer in society can't do something to earn their 'bread' so to speak?

Because someone on the told should be spending as much time as possible actively seeking employment and/or training up in skills. There is very little benefit to the economy to take skilled professionals and have them working in areas where their skills are not used, and likewise there is very little benefit from having them work in their area for a fraction of the "wage" they previously earned, as all it will achieve is to undermine people employed by the private sector.

Precisely! Your point?

You proposed it should be reduced, my point is that it is removed already.

This is what I'm talking about, why not more of these schemes, I'm not denying people their right to aid, many people have been put into the situation where they can't avoid it. I'm simply saying that whats wrong with those who are physically able to earning it?

Call it what you want, but what your proposing is that the state directly employ people. State Aid shouldn't be a barrier to employment, but it shouldn't be the source of it either.

As a completely separate argument, if I've paid PRSI and other taxes all my life, why should I have to work for what I'm entitled to?

storinius

Boston wrote: »

As a completely separate argument, if I've paid PRSI and other taxes all my life, why should I have to work for what I'm entitled to?

It depends what you see the point of a social welfare system as. You say in one of the earlier posts that the point of the dole is to prevent poverty. Put another way, the point is to redistribute wealth. If that logic is true, then it doesn't matter how much tax you paid before you lost your job, you should only get the dole if you need it.

I have to say that I accept your central point, that the social welfare system in Ireland is essentially in pretty good shape. However, I too think that asking people on the dole to help solve collective action problems, even for only 20 hours a week, might be a good way to go. By this I mean picking up rubbish, or as one user said, painting schools.

I just don't know if it is worth it. The 'spongers' are the problem, but I have literally no idea how many people sit at home and don't look for work, rather than use their dole money to allow them to seek employment. Anyone got any half-reliable figures?

Sleazus

What if we require them to do public service work? The money comes from the government, the work does too?

Have them build roads or pick up litter or other jobs in the public sector that eat a huge amount of time? Or actually mandate them to get qualifications necessary for construction work or whatever and then have them build stuff? We do have an overcrowded public sector that drains a huge amount of money. This would kill two birds with one stone. Sure it's a little out there*, but radical times.

* for today, keep in mind it worked during The Great Depression

eamonnm79

How about asking people to do something that isnt valuable to private enterprise but is valuable to society. Maybe helping tidy towns or old folks, or renovating a council house.
If people are able bodied and out of work I dont see the problem with them doing 20 hrs of stuff like the above. It would be good for them and get them out of the house. Perhaps they should be given a little extra a week for this but not much.

thebman

I'd have no problem as long as it is on an opt in basis.

For people without sufficient PRSI payments, dole should be reduced if they don't work for some of it or offer to at least (in case there is surplus people to jobs for dole people).

I think most people would go for it as it looks like you want to be working. You could market at such too after a while you'd probably have statistics that show that people that work for dole when hired the employer has a higher satisfaction of these workers than ones that were too lazy and get up and help clean the town or whatever.

grahamo

How many of the posters going on about working for dole would actually do it themselves if they lost their jobs.:rolleyes:
Not many I suspect.!
By the sound of it half the posters on here are in college and are not even part of the work force.
Get real Lads! Its demoralising enough being on the dole without being forced into the modern day equivalent of a Chain Gang!

thebman

grahamo wrote: »

How many of the posters going on about working for dole would actually do it themselves if they lost their jobs.:rolleyes:
Not many I suspect.!
By the sound of it half the posters on here are in college and are not even part of the work force.
Get real Lads! Its demoralising enough being on the dole without being forced into the modern day equivalent of a Chain Gang!

lol chain gang. Not if it is opt in and you get extra money or better respected for it. Most people would call that a job.

Sleazus

How many of the posters going on about working for dole would actually do it themselves if they lost their jobs.
Not many I suspect.!
By the sound of it half the posters on here are in college and are not even part of the work force.
Get real Lads! Its demoralising enough being on the dole without being forced into the modern day equivalent of a Chain Gang!

With due respect, I envy those in the work force who actually love their jobs. As in, would do it if they didn't receive money for it.

I work a six day week and earn just a tiny bit more than I would for sitting on my arse.

I like this idea because it takes the impotence that people claim to feel on receiving benefit and makes them part of a contributing society again. If, as people claim, they'd really rather be employed than scratching their bums, this is a chance to do it.

It also has the added benefit of catching those with no interest in contributing, or claiming under false pretenses (ie in another country, etc.).

But that's a perk. The real benefit is getting people out of the spiral of feeling useless.

greendom

i think it's vital that we train people who are on the dole. Upskilling the workforce is key to ensure that Ireland is well-positioned when the turn around comes. We need a bit of foresight to judge what skills employers will require in the future and train those suitably qualified and motivitedto meet those requirements. Much more valuable in the long term than picking litter off the street

grahamo

Sleazus wrote: »

With due respect, I envy those in the work force who actually love their jobs. As in, would do it if they didn't receive money for it.

I work a six day week and earn just a tiny bit more than I would for sitting on my arse.

I like this idea because it takes the impotence that people claim to feel on receiving benefit and makes them part of a contributing society again. If, as people claim, they'd really rather be employed than scratching their bums, this is a chance to do it.

It also has the added benefit of catching those with no interest in contributing, or claiming under false pretenses (ie in another country, etc.).

But that's a perk. The real benefit is getting people out of the spiral of feeling useless.

Thats a good point. The worst thing by far about being on the dole is the feeling of uselessness.

thebman

greendom wrote: »

i think it's vital that we train people who are on the dole. Upskilling the workforce is key to ensure that Ireland is well-positioned when the turn around comes. We need a bit of foresight to judge what skills employers will require in the future and train those suitably qualified and motivitedto meet those requirements. Much more valuable in the long term than picking litter off the street

lol, that is a government buzzword.

Show me one country that is an entirely high knowledge economy?

We don't even have half decent broadband and high end research jobs require a very specialised skill set that most people aren't intelligent enough to obtain.

We need all kinds of jobs because most people aren't capable of performing jobs in the research area.

Sleazus

grahamo wrote: »

Thats a good point. The worst thing by far about being on the dole is the feeling of uselessness.

Well, ignoring the rather obvious financial pressure of the situation, which we can't really do anything more about (we are giving them money).

The thing I hear from relatives in that situation and read in the papers is that they feel like they are effectively useless. They want to work.

greendom

thebman wrote: »

lol, that is a government buzzword.

Show me one country that is an entirely high knowledge economy?

We don't even have half decent broadband and high end research jobs require a very specialised skill set that most people aren't intelligent enough to obtain.

We need all kinds of jobs because most people aren't capable of performing jobs in the research area.

So you think they'd be better employed picking up litter then - sure the country's stuffed anyway

I didn't mention high knowledge or research - I'm talking practical skills that employers will require - whatever they may be and at a variety of levels. If the government is talking about it, it's because they have realised how critical this is

EastWallGirl

The people posting here are very naive.

I have never had a problem getting a job but I have decided in the last 6 months that I wanted to change direction bad timing but unfortunately life is not neat or tidy. The job I had was awful and I came to an agreement that my mental health and the course were more important and luckily management hated me and wanted rid of me.

I have just finished a very intensive course and I will be applying for work, to gain experience I have applied to voluntary organisations and I will be volunteering to gain expererience to help with the job prospects and this is against the rules but I am still going to do it as it is part of bigger picture that I do not want to be on the dole and with technology it realistically does not take 40 hours a week to job hunt and I have said if I get something I will have to change the hours.

For anyone interested it took 3 weeks for the organisation to come back to approve me and in addition to this I have to provide every address I have lived at since I was born for the police check which involved addresses in Australia, UK and here, not from over 18, from birth, so that is a process as well.

I will not tell you the reply from the local homework club when I offered to volunteer.

Any work should be done to expose people to jobs they may not have thought about and it should be linked back to long term training. For examples the foundation in horticulture, nursing, teaching, building, or whatever. From my dealings with governemnt departments this kind of joined up thinking that will provide real jobs, training and a sense of community is not going to happen and for those of us that volunteer / work for free to gain a little experience will have to do it dishonestly.

I have worked hard why cant I access my tax at a time of need?


Quote:
As for painting schools and the like, A) you'd need to train people to do that, (which is kinda counter productive if it's completely different to there current skill set) and whats the point in having someone with a degree picking up rubbish?

If their degree is rubbish and not needed, why not???? A degree is now a minimum because of all the stupid people that can barely read or write that seem to be able to attain them.

greendom

EastWallGirl wrote: »

The people posting here are very naive.

.

Thank-you

Sleazus

greendom wrote: »

So you think they'd be better employed picking up litter then - sure the country's stuffed anyway

I don't think it's the state's role to pay for complex degree courses (beyond making fees free) if that's what you mean.

But I'd have no objection to allowing individuals to do (for example) basic computing courses, literacy if necessary, workplace safety courses, etc. Then at the end, the state finds something volunteer-based they can do (building roads, renovating houses, teaching after school, whatever) with that qualification.

If they don't want to take these courses, then they do the non-skilled work that needs doing (painting, picking up litter, etc.). It's not demeaning or slave labour. I'm fairly sure it would average over the minimum wage - I don't think anyone's suggesting a full week's work, maybe two/three working days a week. That leaves time for job hunting and personal time.

Shiny

thebman wrote: »

lol, that is a government buzzword.

Show me one country that is an entirely high knowledge economy?

We don't even have half decent broadband and high end research jobs require a very specialised skill set that most people aren't intelligent enough to obtain.

We need all kinds of jobs because most people aren't capable of performing jobs in the research area.

hehe
I don't think he was talking about high end research. Any person
in their 40's/50's is unlikely to undertake a 3/4 year course to give them
the skills necessary to do research anyway.

This is about expanding peoples skills so that they can work in more than
one area making them more flexible. This could include small 6-12 week
courses so that they can do all kinds of jobs as you say.

deadhead13

Where is the government going to find work to occupy over 380,000 people? How much would such a scheme cost to roll out? Country Councils and City Corporations already employ people to carry out tasks suggested above.

The Government would in effect be employing these people and the same rights under employment law would have to be given to them. How about the government investing its time, efforts and resources into in genuine job creation instead?

thebman

deadhead13 wrote: »

Where is the government going to find work to occupy over 380,000 people? How much would such a scheme cost to roll out? Country Councils and City Corporations already employ people to carry out tasks suggested above.

The Government would in effect be employing these people and the same rights under employment law would have to be given to them. How about the government investing its time, efforts and resources into in genuine job creation instead?

There is loads of work and they would be doing it voluntarily. Being on the dole would just be a requirement to volunteer for the work.

So they would have some employment rights I'm sure but for things like payment and redundancy, no as it is voluntary work.