Work??? Feck that.

c4cat

Overheal wrote: »

Why the does the government pay out Fuel Allowance. shouldnt they just buy everyone a couch? Where are you going to drive to? Maybe they should give out a vacation allowance to the unemployed as well.

I mean FFS you might as well plug everyone in and get some use out of them the way this is starting to sound.

Fuel allowence is for heating the home not for driving

Guy:Incognito

professore wrote: »

PRSI, income levies, no medical card, no fuel allowance, no rent allowance, travel to/from work, etc etc.

Thats not what was said and not everyone is entitled to anything more than the dole itselfr.

Guy:Incognito

professore wrote: »

Yes it is up to her. If the government give her these benefits then why shouldn't she take them? .

Because its there for people who cant get a job, nothing else.

professore wrote: »

The banks are getting billions and no-one bats an eyelid. .

Not that its any way connected to the dole, but do you think all the banks suddenly implodign would be a good thing for some reason? The banks are beyond essential.

professore wrote: »

The old Irish snobbery kicking in again. Makes me sick.

The fact that people view the dole as an income choice rather than a nessecity for when you cant get an income makes me sick.

Thinking that taking from the system when theres no resason why you cant be working and contributing to it instead is ok is a ridiculous attitude for so many to have,

Ass

Ass wrote: »

People talking about the dole as if it's shameful to be claiming it. It's an entitlement.

That's exactly what's wrong with the country. It's seen as an entitlement rather than the last resort. I wish all the dole spongers would go live in the US for a while and see how long they last on their welfare. And no, I'm not talking about people genuinely desperate for a job, I'm talking about people like OP's former employee. Ireland really is an absolute joke.

Raquel Cuddly Quintet wrote: »

What is getting really annoying and old is the "everyone on the dole is scum leeching alcho stoner lazy bastards..." bla bla bla... People who say this do not have a clue what they are talking about and need to wake up to reality I always hoped that people that say this would lose their jobs, that way they would know what they are saying is complete crap

I certainly never said that. I've no problem with my taxes going towards people who need the money. I do have a problem with people thinking they're too good for minimum wage jobs and choosing the dole over earning money. And actually , I DID lose my job last year. I moved to another country to find work, on my own. If I hadn't been in a position to move (kids, mortgage), I would have taken a minimum wage job. I certainly didn't sit around whinging about how the world owes me a living. It actually never even occured to me to just go on the dole. It's nice that it's there if I ever genuinely need it, as it should be, but I don't understand the sense of entitlement so many Irish people seem to have. Social welfare is supposed to be a safety net to protect people from poverty, not a lifestyle choice.

Overheal

[quote=[Deleted User];60378194]That's exactly what's wrong with the country. It's seen as an entitlement rather than the last resort. I wish all the dole spongers would go live in the US for a while and see how long they last on their welfare. And no, I'm not talking about people genuinely desperate for a job, I'm talking about people like OP's former employee. Ireland really is an absolute joke. [/quote]
I must recommend to you:

http://www.amazon.com/Scratch-Beginnings-Search-American-Dream/dp/0061714364

luckat

I'm still wondering if Senna filled the job.

The first posters who wanted dibs on her job, Conchubar1, sdonn, Irishvamp90, pingu_girl, Disease_Ridden, are you all living and working in Letterkenny now?

According to David McWilliams, Letterkenny is in shock:

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2009/05/17/why-bail-out-our-bust-banks

Last Wednesday morning, the dole queue on High Road in Letterkenny extended for about half a mile, out past the social welfare office, up past the Mace supermarket and on up towards the roundabout and De Valera Road. Up to the right is the ghost estate of empty houses which will never sell and will be used to house welfare recipients - locals and immigrants.

This is Letterkenny, or ‘‘Letterkenya’’ as one person described it tome, formerly the commercial hub of north Donegal; now, judging from the traffic, the gateway to Strabane.

The original poster on this thread, Senna, hasn't come back to say what the job was, to say what his turnover rate for staff is, or to say whether he's employed any of those who rushed eagerly to volunteer.

Curious minds want to know!

Highsider

luckat wrote: »

How's €380 after tax?

I'd say both Senna and his or her former employee are better off without each other.

Senna because s/he can now employ the eager posters here, who I'm sure have hotfooted it up to Donegal to work for him/her.

The ex-employee because she's no longer working for someone who grasses her up, rather than saying "Let's sit down and have a cup of coffee and go over the figures.")

Amen to that.

Ass

[quote=[Deleted User];60378194]That's exactly what's wrong with the country. It's seen as an entitlement rather than the last resort. I wish all the dole spongers would go live in the US for a while and see how long they last on their welfare. And no, I'm not talking about people genuinely desperate for a job, I'm talking about people like OP's former employee. Ireland really is an absolute joke. [/QUOTE]
It is an entitlement.

If a set of conditions need to exist for you to be able to claim your entitlement, how is that entitlement not the same as being a last resort? Everyone on the dole is a sponger to you.

The problem with arrogance in Ireland is that there are too many people like you who simply don't quite understand things in this country.

Ass

Lets take what the OP says at face value. Lets just call the woman in the op a sponger and a worthless piece of **** with out even trying to take in to consideration, the womans personal circumstances.

Ass

Ass wrote: »

It is an entitlement.

If a set of conditions need to exist for you to be able to claim your entitlement, how is that entitlement not the same as being a last resort? Everyone on the dole is a sponger to you.

The problem with arrogance in Ireland is that there are too many people like you who simply don't quite understand things in this country.

No, I DO understand things in this country. That's what infuriates me. Did you read my post? I said I have no problem with people who genuinely CAN'T get a job. This woman was offered a job paying more than the dole and turned it out because 'it wasn't worth it.' That shows a tremendous lack of ethics and laziness. The dole is NOT a last resort if you are offered a job paying a good bit above minimum wage and you turn it down. How can you not see that? This particular woman has committed a crime by turning down work in favour of staying on the dole, so how exactly is she 'entitled' to it? She is fraudulently receiving taxpayer's money because she can't be bothered to work for a very reasonable wage.

Ass

[quote=[Deleted User];60380316]No, I DO understand things in this country. That's what infuriates me. Did you read my post? I said I have no problem with people who genuinely CAN'T get a job. This woman was offered a job paying more than the dole and turned it out because 'it wasn't worth it.' That shows a tremendous lack of ethics and laziness. The dole is NOT a last resort if you are offered a job paying a good bit above minimum wage and you turn it down. How can you not see that? This particular woman has committed a crime by turning down work in favour of staying on the dole, so how exactly is she 'entitled' to it? She is fraudulently receiving taxpayer's money because she can't be bothered to work for a very reasonable wage.[/QUOTE]I see you've taken where the op has said "a bit over minimum wage", and changed it to "a good bit over minimum wage".

Lets assume a hypothetical situation here for a minute. Lets assume we have a person. Lets assume person A is a single mother with a set of skills, but due to there being a recession on at the minute, jobs in her particular field of work are hard to find. Also, the fact that she is a single mother means of any jobs that actually are available to her, only a small portion of those jobs are actually suitable.

Now, this person gets a part time job as a trial, proving that she is actively searching for a job. After a two week trial she gets offered a full time job and she accepts.

Later on that week, she looks at her pay check and does the math. She thinks to herself "This is ****ing arse and earning this much money just wont cut it". It makes no sense for her to take a job that she's getting underpaid for, that will barely support her when she has a child to support as well.

She comes to the conclusion that her current situation on the dole is better until something more suitable comes along.

You are telling me that this woman is a criminal? Now I've substituted a woman with a child to support in to the place of the woman in the op. It is entirely possible that the woman in the op wasn't a single mother, but we weren't given a set of personal circumstances, so we don't know.

Also, the op states that she was mad, therefor we can assume that because she was mad her portrayal of how things unfolded is going to be pretty biased.

Anyway. Seeing as you are now making things up in order to strengthen your argument, I feel there is no point further debating this with you.

Ass

Ass wrote: »

I see you've taken where the op has said "a bit over minimum wage", and changed it to "a good bit over minimum wage".

Lets assume a hypothetical situation here for a minute. Lets assume we have a person. Lets assume person A is a single mother with a set of skills, but due to there being a recession on at the minute, jobs in her particular field of work are hard to find. Also, the fact that she is a single mother means of any jobs that actually are available to her, only a small portion of those jobs are actually suitable.

Now, this person gets a part time job as a trial, proving that she is actively searching for a job. After a two week trial she gets offered a full time job and she accepts.

Later on that week, she looks at her pay check and does the math. She thinks to herself "This is ****ing arse and earning this much money just wont cut it". It makes no sense for her to take a job that she's getting underpaid for, that will barely support her when she has a child to support as well.

She comes to the conclusion that her current situation on the dole is better until something more suitable comes along.

You are telling me that this woman is a criminal? Now I've substituted a woman with a child to support in to the place of the woman in the op. It is entirely possible that the woman in the op wasn't a single mother, but we weren't given a set of personal circumstances, so we don't know.

Also, the op states that she was mad, therefor we can assume that because she was mad her portrayal of how things unfolded is going to be pretty biased.

Anyway. Seeing as you are now making things up in order to strengthen your argument, I feel there is no point further debating this with you.

Eh, 9.50 IS a 'good bit' over minimum wage. OP has told us how much he was going to pay her, and we know what the minimum wage is, so what exactly have I 'made up'?

And as for what you posted, yes, I still think that is unethical. I know some people have it harder than others, but what if everyone in the world took that attitude? Who would be paying for all these single mothers and people who don't think it's worthwhile to work for 'only' 9.50 an hour? Do you think only company executives and stockbrokers pay taxes? The point is that people need to take responsibility for their own situation. I've worked hard through college, after college and will be working my way through my Masters because I'm not 'entitled' to a penny from the state. I'm not entitled to a medical card because I've always worked. I'm as poor as anyone on the dole. Why should my taxes be subsidising someone who chooses not to work?

Naikon

Ass wrote: »

lmao you're angry at someone because they didn't accept a job you offered them that pays peanuts.

That reminds me. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys:pac:

Ass

[quote=[Deleted User];60380756]Eh, 9.50 IS a 'good bit' over minimum wage. OP has told us how much he was going to pay her, and we know what the minimum wage is, so what exactly have I 'made up'?

And as for what you posted, yes, I still think that is unethical. I know some people have it harder than others, but what if everyone in the world took that attitude? Who would be paying for all these single mothers and people who don't think it's worthwhile to work for 'only' 9.50 an hour? Do you think only company executives and stockbrokers pay taxes? The point is that people need to take responsibility for their own situation. I've worked hard through college, after college and will be working my way through my Masters because I'm not 'entitled' to a penny from the state. I'm not entitled to a medical card because I've always worked. I'm as poor as anyone on the dole. Why should my taxes be subsidising someone who chooses not to work?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, ok you win. It's unethical to make wise financial decisions.

Overheal

Ass wrote: »

Yeah, ok you win. It's unethical to make wise financial decisions.

So whats it like? Being so far to the left that you cant even see the line anymore?

Sofiztikated

Ass wrote: »

Later on that week, she looks at her pay check and does the math. She thinks to herself "This is ****ing arse and earning this much money just wont cut it". It makes no sense for her to take a job that she's getting underpaid for, that will barely support her when she has a child to support as well.

She comes to the conclusion that her current situation on the dole is better until something more suitable comes along.

You are telling me that this woman is a criminal?

I'm going to debate with you on the grounds of YOUR hypothetical situation.

Yes. She is a criminal. She is fit to work, at a job that pays more than what the statutory payments are, pay PRSI and PAYE, contribute to the economy, both local AND national, why can't she?

She's claiming social welfare, not because she can't find a job, but because it doesn't suit her?

Social welfare FRAUD like this is crippling our already poor coffers.

I have no problem with people claiming welfare because they cannot get a job. She was offered one, tried it for a week, decided it wasn't for her, and went back on the dole.

Oh, she might have a mortgage or whatever? F*ck her. Let the social take it off her, she might think twice about fraud after that.

Also, why couldn't she do her maths BEFORE taking the job, wasting the employers time and money (Yes it does cost money to hire people and train them, and then to leave? Wasted money)

I also hate when people say "Sure, she'd only be working for €50 a week."
No, no she wouldn't. She would be working for €380 a week. There is a difference. The €50 may be a difference in what she is receiving now and what she would be receiving on the dole, but it is not what she is working for.

Well done OP, I'm going with the mentality of f*ck them and bad drivers, I'm reporting the lot.

Ass

Ass wrote: »

Yeah, ok you win. It's unethical to make wise financial decisions.

Right, OK, so let's all quit our jobs then. You think 9.50 is peanuts, so I'm obviously insane for working for not much more in a job requiring a college degree and postgrad cert. Let's all stop working until meanies like OP agree to pay us 30 euro an hour for a standing behind a counter, because that's what we all deserve, damn it! Sure, money grows on trees, doesn't it? What is this 'earn' word people speak of, I don't understand it!

CiaranC

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I also hate when people say "Sure, she'd only be working for €50 a week."
No, no she wouldn't. She would be working for €380 a week. There is a difference. The €50 may be a difference in what she is receiving now and what she would be receiving on the dole, but it is not what she is working for.

It would cost her 200 quid a week to pay for childcare and she would lose her rent allowance.

Its not financially viable for the single mother in the example to work for 350 euro a week.

Ass

CiaranC wrote: »

It would cost her 200 quid a week to pay for childcare and she would lose her rent allowance.

Its not financially viable for the single mother in the example to work for 350 euro a week.

Charles Scarce Selflessness doesn't quite get making rational financial decisions. That's why he/she has is earning just over 9.50 an hour.

high horse

CiaranC wrote: »

It would cost her 200 quid a week to pay for childcare and she would lose her rent allowance.

Its not financially viable for the single mother in the example to work for 350 euro a week.

Can we at least read the whole thread before inventing details to this womans life? OP said there are no kids and she does have a partner, so she is neither single or a mother

It wouldn't matter that she would lose her rent allowance because she would have her own money to pay for rent.

Ass

Ass wrote: »

Charles Scarce Selflessness doesn't quite get making rational financial decisions. That's why he/she has is earning just over 9.50 an hour with his/her qualifications.

I'm earning enough to support myself and not leech off the state, while I further my qualifications to get a well paid job in the future. I ask again, if we all thought like you, where would the money come from? You have absolutely no understanding of the economy.

Ass

There is one key word in my post there that you've ignored in my post there that invalidates your sarcastic retort. I'm going to let you figure it out.

Ass

Ass wrote: »

There is one key word in my post there that you've ignored in my post there that invalidates your sarcastic retort. I'm going to let you figure it out.

Maybe you should fix your grammar mistakes - your posts might be easier to understand. Please don't deprive us of your expert knowledge and wisdom.

Ass

Heh, you've moved on to grammar this soon.

*leans back*

Wertz

WTF? Hypothetical single mothers?
...have you idiots even read the OP? She is married/co-habiting with no kids and a relatively new car sitting in the drive way, and can't be f*cking arsed to work for "an extra €50 a week".
Any one trying to defend that as being a rational financial decision has a lot of growing up to do. Thta's called letting someone else take responsibility for your keep...in this case, the taxpayer.

You're calling Charles Scarce Selflessness out on her decision to work for relatively low pay re; qualifications, and try to contribute to both her own keep and her keep to the country through taxes...as far as I'm aware she isn't even Irish, but yet she's shown more social responsibility than most Irish people on here defending this scrounging c*nt in Donegal...
Seems a lot of people have some growing up to do, and a lot to learn about the realities of work and pay...

CiaranC

Wertz wrote: »

WTF? Hypothetical single mothers?
...have you idiots even read the OP?

Try reading the thread yourself. :rolleyes: Post #192 and the subsequent posts dealing with a hypothetical.

Wertz

You'll have to excuse me for sticking with the topic 191 previous posts were talking about...
If Ass wanted to talk about a similar but totally differing set of circumstances he should have started a new thread...trolling this one is probably just a lot more fun...

CiaranC

Ok wertz, so if we want to introduce new examples or facets of the discussion should we run it by you by PM first?

gaeilgegrinds

What would happen is people had to work? Or else have nothing? I'm not saying I agree but was suggested lastnight among friends and has been on my mind since.

Overheal

Ass wrote: »

Heh, you've moved on to grammar this soon.

*leans back*

Hows the couch? Comfy?

Talk about Rational Financial Decisions for a moment. Every year you spend on the couch is another year wasted. Borrowing your warped rationale for a moment, lets assume you work for 1.50 an hour for a year. Great. Youve also just acquired a new year of work experience. Your chances of getting advanced or finding a new job have just gone up. Out of college my dad made maybe $13,000 in his first year. With 20+ years of experience (not on his couch mind you) he earns, easily, $200,000 per annum.

However while you sit on your self-pity sofa the only way you are going to get more money is to scam the system (like, getting a cash in hand job - commiting tax fraud) or you are going to have to hope the government feels you are suffering too much and raises your allowance. Its an allowance. Youre demeaning yourself to the level of a child when you are on the dole.

So lets assume for a moment everyone is as "rational" as you. Everyone decides to quit their jobs. Businesses decide to shut down. After all your man a few pages ago was commenting how his brother makes quite a bit more on the dole than he does running his own business. So? Whats left? You take for granted the woman you pay for your milk every week and the business that makes your bread. The lads that operate the ESB and even the lads that operate this website. If they all decided its too much work for too little pay, there wouldnt be a society left.