Dole recipients Will have to work 19.5 hours

alex73

bbam wrote: »

However
If it is aimed at those who are just recently unemployed then SHAME on the government......

It will be aimed at those on the dole for longer that 6 months I heard.. and they will be starting with those who are longest on the dole.

Welease

bbam wrote: »

People go to college and educate themselves in order to avoid cleaning the streets.... Now the government think it's a great idea to make them do it to be entitled to their assistance....

People go to college to get an education.. An education does not guarantee a right to higher level employment.

If there is no demand for a persons education/skills (either due to those skills, the economy or various other factors), then they need to change their expectations of what they can avoid doing.

Why should somone who qualified as an architect 12 months ago not have to be involved in the scheme if an unemployed factory worker would?

timespast

furerer wrote: »

A free bus pass is no good out this way.......there is NO public transport. Again you all seem to be talking from a Dublin point of view....in fact you all sound like a bunch of raving lunatics.
Do ANY of you REALLY think that working for dole is going to help this country out of the sh1t it is in? All it will achieve is a smugness from the well-off, the miserable people that have nothing to do all day but moan about everyone and everything because their own lives are so miserable......and I know a few that live around here!

The same problem Ireland has had it's entire history......the few that have do not want anyone to share in it.........Ireland has always suffered with poor employment, and always will, because the Irish cannot think outside of the box........the education system still teaches to hate the English, along with the multitude of Irish adults that also think that way. The Irish love to kick you when your down........as we can all read from this thread! The days of tipping the hat might have disappeared.....but the lick-as6ing is still there.

When you all get in touch with reality.........yes.........I mean outside of Ireland.........what! you mean there is somewhere outside of Ireland.....will that mean I'm going to be out of my safe zone?.....unfortunately yes! ....you might just see that the world does not turn thanks to money........it's a natural occurance, like life itself. Some of you sound like the schoolboy bullies I remember at school........and I hated them, but would not let them bully me. When you are strong, physically, mentally, or financially, you are supposed to help your fellow man that is not so strong.....but alas......as we see, that is not the case at all times. One day you may find yourself in a situation where you need assisance, this life or another........do you think that you will deserve it?

I don't know where the "English hating" comes into this....... that's for another thread...... I realise there are many History revisionists out there.

I think the Govt. should do all it can to help the unemployed....after all the vast majority were working full time 2 years ago.

Also, a message board doesn't represent the general opinion of the country.... I believe the vast majority of people know who are to blame.... Banker, Developers, Politicians etc.

Some people just need scapegoats.

It's akin to blaming the patients for the state of the Health service.

timespast

katkin wrote: »

I am an unemployed person who is against this scheme for many reasons, but one of them is not that I think the work is beneath me or I am too lazy. I know some people are paid to be animal welfare officers, etc but I would gladly help out the local animal shelter for the extra 20 quid - why hasn't O'Cuiv mentioned this area, I hope he considers it. I would clean up along rivers and country roads that local authorities never go to. I would work in a charity shop. I would visit old people for a chat and to do light housework, shopping for them. These are community spirited things that are rarely someone else's job (I might be wrong there). But I don't wish to further mess up someone else's chance of paid employment

I couldn't agree more...... why not contact O'Cuiv and put your suggestions to him?

SuperInfinity

Welease wrote: »

People go to college to get an education.. An education does not guarantee a right to higher level employment.

If there is no demand for a persons education/skills (either due to those skills, the economy or various other factors), then they need to change their expectations of what they can avoid doing.

Why should somone who qualified as an architect 12 months ago not have to be involved in the scheme if an unemployed factory worker would?

Yep, well I actually agree with this Welease. People need to get out of the idea that education is some kind of silver bullet that guarantees you'll be successful.

Education doesn't make you "better" in any way than anyone else. It doesn't matter what your teacher/parent/government/sister/auntie/priest/trainer told you, education will not "enrich" your life anymore than any other diligent pursuit would.

AnnyHallsal

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I actually agree with this Welease. People need to get out of the idea that education is some kind of silver bullet that guarantees you'll be successful.

This is something that's been amply demonstrated in the last three years, but not I think before then. So there's a generation who may well pay for their expensive educations..well, with nothing.

My parents thought education was a golden ticket, and in their generation it was. No more. It feels horrible to see them disillusioned. They worked hard in their working-class jobs to save for college courses that have suddenly been rendered almost worthless.

bbam

Education is never worthless or wasted, nor is it a right to be better than anyone else...
It is however an enabler, it will enable you to take up oppertunities that arrise during your life that otherwise you wouldn't be considered for....

AnnyHallsal

bbam wrote: »

Education is never worthless or wasted, nor is it a right to be better than anyone else...
It is however an enabler, it will enable you to take up oppertunities that arrise during your life that otherwise you wouldn't be considered for....

Yeah, I agree completely. But they never imagined their kids would be on the dole and that makes me sad, and makes being unemployed even more difficult.

katkin

timespast wrote: »

I couldn't agree more...... why not contact O'Cuiv and put your suggestions to him?

I have

timespast

katkin wrote: »

I have

More of us should.

Sandvich

Valmont wrote: »

I think the plan is to keep saying "Keynesian economics", "Stimulus plan", and "fairness" over and over until the problem vanishes. Perhaps the IMF has a few million workers growing In Vitro waiting to be unleashed when the unfunded pension liabilities start kicking in.

Why do people keep saying IMF when the IMF have a horrendous track record. It makes me think many people here are just flat out fetishists for having "harsh measures" on people that aren't them.

Sandvich

murphaph wrote: »

Finylly the penny drops. YES!!

Our standard of living was built on a fallacy. There was little or no substance to the economy which provided it. That economy has now been shown for what it was and Ireland is borrowing 20 BILLION a year to maintain that false standard of living. This may come as news to you: We were never a wealthy country.

Why should the average Irish person feel entitled to live in a 3 bed semi within commuting distance to work when the average German expects to live their whole life in a flat, likely without a car.

Yet I doubt many of the people here who are the most aggressive are going to be the ones accepting a serious drop in their quality of living. Smells more and more rotten.

Sandvich

dan_d wrote: »

I have to ask. What exactly do you understand this to mean?

That you can't have 5 holidays a year? That you can't drive the latest range Rover from your semi-D house to the office every day? That you can't afford to shop in BT every week?

Or does it mean that you can afford 2 holidays a year, 1 or maybe 2 ordinary model cars, a decent (non fee paying) education for your kids, and a nice meal out every few weeks?

Or do you think we will all be going so low that we'll have trouble putting food on the table, not be able to put petrol in a car and have to save on heating and electricity in the winter?

What exactly does this statement mean? People throw it around as though we are going to regress overnight to the lifestyle of a Calcutta slum, but the reality for most is closer to my second option above.Would that be so awful? The average German may spend their life in a flat, but firstly, that's the norm over there, secondly, have you seen the size of their flats? thirdly, their cities are built for and cater to, people who live in apartment buildings, with community swimming pools, pitches, gardens, parks, play groups for kids (for free).They ski in the winter and often head for the water in the summer, they finish up work at 12am every Friday, their taxes fund a deeply efficient public transport system (meaning many don't need a car) and healthcare system...all in all they have an excellent lifestyle. And the same can be applied to France, Spain - the majority of developed European countries.Would "lowering our standard of living"to that level be such a disaster?

I know the response I'll get is "but life is cheaper over there". It is. Because people get paid less. The minimum wage is less. Social benefits are less. Taxes are higher. And prices are in line with that, with what people can actually afford to pay.They are all linked in together. But that won't happen here until people accept that they have to take home less money everyday.

This notion that our standards are dropping because we can't afford a new Prada handbag every other week - for the love of God, what on earth makes a bog standard middle class person feel they have either the income or the lifestyle to warrant that kind of expenditure? That is for very wealthy people.We were not wealthy. We lived on credit. When will that sink in??

Yes we need to lower our standards of living. And by that I mean - 1 car.1 or 2 holidays.Chop up the credit card. One less Playstation/Nintendo DS a year. One meal out every month, not four. Dunnes Stores instead of BT.Hold off on installing the new kitchen straight away.

I know there are people out there who are genuinely struggling, and this is not directed at them. They are another problem for another day, and I've derailed this thread enough.

Except the people that are taking the hardest hits are people who've never seen this lifestyle to begin with. You say they're another problem, however how do you know the ones you're complaining about are the loudest voices on this forum?

I very much doubt that is the case.

I also dislike blaming the downturn on people "living beyond our means", when we as a country thought at the time we WERE wealthy and could afford it. The problem is largely with the institutions that made us believe we were doing fine, the banks, the government etc. Greece collapsed largely because it kept flat out lying about it's public finances.

Not everyone can be an economic expert, and even if they were economic experts don't seem to agree on exactly what's wrong. Plus if we're cutting education now when class sizes are already absurd, people aren't going to be educated enough to avoid the same thing happening all over again are they?

You can't "blame" large groups of people. You can only really blame individuals and smaller institutions, because of the fact that large scale behaviour is governed by social trends. You have to look at the root of the problem. Even if people were outright irresponsible with their money, you have to look at WHY that is or else you solve nothing. Telling people to suck it up when they don't even realise what they were doing wrong seems to be the order of the day here, especially when it's largely not their fault.

Unfortunately some people will have to get used to the fact that they can't afford much the same level of lifestyle they did before. But acting like they were entirely to blame is simplistic and the same attitude that's used to justify the social darwinian aspects of laissez-faire capitalism, under such pretty terms as "personal responsibility".

And again, it's not just people living excessively that is hit, nor is it a division between them and those "Struggling". There are many people in between too who suddenly have to take a hit for no decent reason.

And when they're being told to accept all this from people on this forum who, as someone pointed out, come across like school yard bullies in suits, it only adds to the frustration. It's one thing to be pushing a more conservative ideology at this time, but why does it have to be done in such a mean spirited manner?

And you can't just drop welfare, minimum wage etc. and hope that everything comes down. There are a lot of other factors such as the cost of oil that keep prices propped up.

While we may not be living in Calcutta slums(and keep in mind India is improving constantly and probably doesn't match the popular definition of poverty in the same way anymore, so be careful) people are still angry because it's a sudden blow that doesn't seem to have any fair cause, and there are people to blame it on.

I also think that a lot of people are looking at the right wing/libertarian reaction and even if they don't realise it consciously, are getting very scared that people like this will push more and push more towards the economic right and gain a lot of power and we will end up with effective slums(not that Ireland is completely slum free as it is) due to the lack of welfare/safety nets. It happened largely under Maggie Thatcher in the UK, where the economy was supposedly rebooted, but at the cost of the highest child poverty rate in western europe at the time.

That's what economic right wing/libertarian policies get you. People are constantly scared of a sudden push towards hard-line right wing policies(the funding to FAS suddenly being dropped coming as a shock to some) or the IMF coming in and unreasonable austerity measures destroying out economy even further.

Whatever we do, we can't push towards what happened in the UK during Thatcher's reign but it looks like many on this forum would favour it. While everyone is entitled to their viewpoint, we simply must not let the government or anyone get the idea that this is the way to go. We have to make absolutely sure that we don't take this out on the weakest and most vulnerable, and unfortunately that's something only a social democracy of some sort can do.

efb

Sandvich wrote: »

Except the people that are taking the hardest hits are people who've never seen this lifestyle to begin with. You say they're another problem, however how do you know the ones you're complaining about are the loudest voices on this forum?

I very much doubt that is the case.

And you can't just drop welfare, minimum wage etc. and hope that everything comes down. There are a lot of other factors such as the cost of oil that keep prices propped up.

If they never saw the lifestyle how are they the hardest hit now?

If they couldn't afford ahouse before the boom, they didn't buy one inthe boom no negative equity.

Sw fell less than inflation on the basic foodstuffs of the lower socioecomic classes that you speak of.

I'd say the hardest hit were the middle classes that thought they managed property portfolios and got caught with their trousers round there ankles, but I don't feel one bit sorry for them.

Sandvich

efb wrote: »

If they never saw the lifestyle how are they the hardest hit now?

If they couldn't afford ahouse before the boom, they didn't buy one inthe boom no negative equity.

Sw fell less than inflation on the basic foodstuffs of the lower socioecomic classes that you speak of.

I'd say the hardest hit were the middle classes that thought they managed property portfolios and got caught with their trousers round there ankles, but I don't feel one bit sorry for them.

People can be in debt and out of work, there are quite a few examples of this. I'm tired of the "dole not meant to pay for debts" excuse, it's still there. People like this have been hit the hardest because they were sustaining a lifestyle they expected to be reasonable at the time and are now without a job.

You can't really blame them for that, ideally we should all prepare for a rainy day but these are extreme circumstances that are NOT their fault.

Also there's a big difference between buying a house and having 3 or 4 cars. As far as we knew - we could afford this.

Sandvich

timespast wrote: »

In times of recession the same old excuses are used....... spongers, living off the state etc etc.

Many politicians, Bankers and property developers have screwed us for Billions!

If the Govt. wanted to do something useful they'd hand out free bus passes to those on benefits and encourage education courses, work experience with worthy companies and give aid to community group set ups to look after their area.

Remember these same people were all working quite happily until these idiots in Dail Eireann made a bollox of it.

Yes. This is my problem with the libertarians and their ilk, blaming it on people who didn't consciously do any evil, while going soft on their banker buddies, else they no longer puff a cigar with them down the gentlemen's club.

efb

Sandvich wrote: »

People can be in debt and out of work, there are quite a few examples of this. I'm tired of the "dole not meant to pay for debts" excuse, it's still there. People like this have been hit the hardest because they were sustaining a lifestyle they expected to be reasonable at the time and are now without a job.

You can't really blame them for that, ideally we should all prepare for a rainy day but these are extreme circumstances that are NOT their fault.

Also there's a big difference between buying a house and having 3 or 4 cars. As far as we knew - we could afford this.

Am I the only person that knew he couldn't afford a house, so didn't buy one, and that house prices were vastly overinflated when a house was dearer in London than Dublin? Basic Logic anyone???

PAULWATSON

never been unemployed in my life, however I am not one of these bandwagon jumpers.

This move is disgusting, have you people no respect for yourselves or anyone else?

Flex

Sandvich wrote: »

People can be in debt and out of work, there are quite a few examples of this. I'm tired of the "dole not meant to pay for debts" excuse, it's still there. People like this have been hit the hardest because they were sustaining a lifestyle they expected to be reasonable at the time and are now without a job.

You can't really blame them for that, ideally we should all prepare for a rainy day but these are extreme circumstances that are NOT their fault.

Also there's a big difference between buying a house and having 3 or 4 cars. As far as we knew - we could afford this.

Yes of course, its everyone elses fault. Everyone who wasnt in on the secret that economies go in boom and bust cycles and the fact that house prices were unsustainable when a small apartment in Dublin went to about 10 times the average industrial wage was taken advantage of by the government because they werent capable of thinking for themselves. Dont forget to use the trump card of the economically illiterate and blame the banks despite the fact we'd still have a €20B+ deficit regardless of them and to scream "MAKE UP THE DEFICIT BY TAXING THE RICH!!!" while saying we need to encourage job growth and investment in the economy in the same breath. This whole "No no, that guy told me something and I chose to believe him, so everyone else has to share my burden, even those who saw through the hype. Im not taking responsibility for my actions, talk to my union, lets all vote Labour, fat cats, banks fault, Im too accustomed to living in Celtic Tiger land, rabble rabble, etc." is such a load of bollix.

Regards the topic, Im not sure I think this is a good idea because it still means people are being paid by the government so doesnt help the economic situation at all. It would be good to have positions open to people who want to do this though to give people who are 'bored' on the dole a reason to get out and some greater structured routine to get by on because it can be soul destroying feeling idle and like you have a very limited routine to go by and because (personally) I think it would look good on a CV for any job because it would show youre eager to work and want to keep busy anyway you can, as long its certain private sector employment couldnt have been got from it.

Welease

Sandvich wrote: »

People can be in debt and out of work, there are quite a few examples of this. I'm tired of the "dole not meant to pay for debts" excuse, it's still there. People like this have been hit the hardest because they were sustaining a lifestyle they expected to be reasonable at the time and are now without a job.

You can't really blame them for that, ideally we should all prepare for a rainy day but these are extreme circumstances that are NOT their fault.

Also there's a big difference between buying a house and having 3 or 4 cars. As far as we knew - we could afford this.

Maybe the people who believed that, should stop handing out economic advice to others now...They weren't so smart then, they probably aren't any smarter now......

If people believed their lifestyles were sustainable by taking on large amounts of personal debt, which grew yearly.. then welcome to the harsh reality, you couldn't afford it.

Stop expecting people to bail out your lifestyle choices.

feicim

Welease wrote: »

Stop expecting people to bail out your lifestyle choices.

Its a pity you can't see the bigger picture welease.

The government has changed the rules of debt.

If people default on debt - the tax payers pick up the tab, as money is being poured into the banks.

The situation is such that the taxpayer picks up the tab either way

They either pay the unemployed enough for them to cope with their debts - or the alternative is they pay when the debt is defaulted on via bank bail outs.

The tone of your posts are fairly obnoxious too. You should lighten up and "welease" some of your bitterness and resentment towards your fellow citizens who are just trying to get through this tough time.

Welease

feicim wrote: »

Its a pity you can't see the bigger picture welease.

The government has changed the rules of debt.

If people default on debt - the tax payers pick up the tab, as money is being poured into the banks.

The situation is such that the taxpayer picks up the tab either way

They either pay the unemployed enough for them to cope with their debts - or the alternative is they pay when the debt is defaulted on via bank bail outs.

The tone of your posts are fairly obnoxious too. You should lighten up and "welease" some of your bitterness and resentment towards your fellow citizens who are just trying to get through this tough time.

The rules haven't changed.. Personal debt is not being picked up by the tax payer...

I don't have any bitterness towards my follow citizens, in fact i feel nothing but sympathy for those caught in a very tough situation, but I think a certain percentage need to wake up to the situation and stop blaming everyone else for their own decisions..There are plenty of people who didn't get themselves up to their neck in debts, why should they continually be penalised for bad personal decisions made by others.

This country cannot continue to borrow more so that people can continue with their inflated view of the lifestyle they are due.

Read this thread.. people saying they will not be demeaned by having to pick up litter, but they expect people that do pick up litter for a living to continue paying higher taxes to keep them in the lifestyle they expected..
That is obnoxious!!!

feicim

Welease wrote: »

This country cannot continue to borrow more so that people can continue with their inflated view of the lifestyle they are due.

Correct.

And it isn't.

The country is borrowing about 10 billion a year to give to banks.

A lot of the money being paid out now was paid into the system in the form of PRSI.

If the government mismanged this and now have to borrow money its hardly the fault of the unemployed person who is now claiming.

And it certainly is not borrowing "so that people can continue with their inflated view of the lifestyle they are due."

You seem to be buying into the goverment PR campaign that being on the dole is the high life. Try thinking for yourself.

If you think that cutting dole or making people work for it is going to help the situation in Ireland you need to get a clue.

Welease

feicim wrote: »

Correct.

And it isn't.

The country is borrowing about 10 billion a year to give to banks.

A lot of the money being paid out now was paid into the system in the form of PRSI.

If the government mismanged this and now have to borrow money its hardly the fault of the unemployed person who is now claiming.

And it certainly is not borrowing "so that people can continue with their inflated view of the lifestyle they are due."

You seem to be buying into the goverment PR campaign that being on the dole is the high life. Try thinking for yourself.

If you think that cutting dole or making people work for it is going to help the situation in Ireland you need to get a clue.

Amazing.. i didn't fall for the credit boom/property boom.. I'm not up to my neck in debt, but of course I am the one who can't think for themselves, and falls for the government's PR stunts. Gotcha.

Bailing out Anglo was the worst thing this country ever did (financials aside).. It gave people who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, a belief that if the banks don't have to be held responsible then why should they..

feicim wrote: »

And it certainly is not borrowing "so that people can continue with their inflated view of the lifestyle they are due."

feicim wrote: »

They either pay the unemployed enough for them to cope with their debts

Keeping dole at artifically high levels (or raising it so they can cope with their debts) is funding a lifestyle they cannot afford, and the country cannot afford either.. My neighbour (a good friend) complains about this daily... banks this banks that.. still has his 46" TV, Sat TV, Computer, 2 cars etc.. wouldnt consider selling them to pay of some of his debts. Nope, it's up to everyone else to sort him out! Why should he suffer while Seanie still lives the high life!

And to put it in the context of this thread, those who believe they should continue to receive that level of funding in order to pay off their debts while refusing to demean themselves by helping with community projects imho need to pull their heads out of backsides.

Head The Wall

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Yep, well I actually agree with this Welease. People need to get out of the idea that education is some kind of silver bullet that guarantees you'll be successful.

Education doesn't make you "better" in any way than anyone else. It doesn't matter what your teacher/parent/government/sister/auntie/priest/trainer told you, education will not "enrich" your life anymore than any other diligent pursuit would.

There's more than freshly educated people on the dole though. There are educated people that have 10, 20 and more years experience in their roles. These people have utilised their education and proven themselves

Welease

Head The Wall wrote: »

There's more than freshly educated people on the dole though. There are educated people that have 10, 20 and more years experience in their roles. These people have utilised their education and proven themselves

Just so my post is not taken out of context.. I am a big support of education, and experience.. People need those in order to advance themselves.

But, in the context of this thread, having an education (and or experience) shouldn't put you above having to perform roles that others in society might be expected to do without complaint.

ei.sdraob

I wonder why there's no moves at all to helping new businesses and start-ups

well beside the no corporation tax for a year for new companies up to an amount to give credit (how often you hear me say that!) to FF, no pun intended

If there are so many talented people then it begs to question whats preventing some of these from going alone? what can the government do here?? me thinks:
* simplifying and reducing employer side taxation would be a start (dont forget employers also have to pay paye/prsi for ya)
* reducing corporation tax for any existing company which increases the number of employees it has on a sliding basis
* lowering the minimum wage by about 10% to match the deflation we had
* lower the sector minimum wage in various union controlled sectors such as construction and catering the where the min wage is set about the national min wage
* cutting down on red tape from Revenue and CRO (tho to give them credit they are moving in that direction)

bbam

Welease wrote: »

But, in the context of this thread, having an education (and or experience) shouldn't put you above having to perform roles that others in society might be expected to do without complaint.

Maybe the work they are asked to do for their assistance should reflect their education and experience... It is wrong to expect highly educated experienced people to pick up litter and sweep the streets if it's something they don't want to do....Lots volunteer to do it as a community improvment but lots don't..

There are enough folks on long term dole who intentionally pissed about at school, got themselves no further skills other than signing their name, these are the folks who have placed themselves perfectly to sweep the streets...

ei.sdraob

bbam wrote: »

Maybe the work they are asked to do for their assistance should reflect their education and experience... It is wrong to expect highly educated experienced people to pick up litter and sweep the streets if it's something they don't want to do....Lots volunteer to do it as a community improvment but lots don't..

There are enough folks on long term dole who intentionally pissed about at school, got themselves no further skills other than signing their name, these are the folks who have placed themselves perfectly to sweep the streets...

Ok we have lets say alot of unemployed civil engineers

what work do you propose they do? build more houses/offices ? oh wait we did that for a while, and more importantly who pays for it and what's the net benefit and to whom?

---

This whole thread is a perfect illustration as to why the government is terrible employer when it comes to job creation and organisation
This should be left to the private sector.

The questions people are asking here are backward!

It should not be a case of "What the hell will we do with the unemployed?"

But a question of "What can we and the government do to make it easier for companies to be created, survive and to inturn employ people?"

By making people dig ditches or clean streets or paint walls you are not addressing the core issues, that got them there and can get them out of unemployment.

bbam

ei.sdraob wrote: »

By making people dig ditches or clean streets or paint walls you are not addressing the core issues, that got them there and can get them out of unemployment.

No but it is popular with the section of the voters who think that the minute a person singns on the dole that they are spongers and that they have lost all rights to any self respect...

It's also a great way to speed up the exedous of skilled experienced workforce from Ireland....