Dole recipients Will have to work 19.5 hours

changes

I don't think people getting dole from their stamps should have to do it, but as soon as their stamps run out then yes they should deff have to to the 19.5 hrs.

Far to many people in this country think its acceptable to spend their life on the dole and live of benefits without a care in the world.

thebaldsoprano

WhodahWoodah wrote: »

Why on earth would an Irish business owner create a new job and pay an extra worker a full time wage if he could get his hands on two dole workers for free? In fact, why would he continue to employ his existing workforce if he could maybe swop them out for dole workers?

I agree that'd be very dangerous, if that's what they were proposing to do. That doesn't look to be the case though, from this article:

Under a pilot scheme, intially up to 10,000 unemployed people will receive €210 for 19.5 hours work every week by helping out with local after-school and childcare services, sports clubs, services for older people and environmental projects.

McDougal wrote: »

Instead of this working for dole crap why doesn't the state just hire unemployed people and give them meaningful jobs to do. It makes no sense to be firing public workers and then making them work for the dole doing useless nonsense.

I'm sure FF would love to 'fix' the problem by increasing, yet again, the size of the state beaurocracy. The only two options I can think of to fund this would be to borrow more money - giving over more power to undemocratic institutions whose only interest is in seeing how much they can get from the Government, or to increase taxes - putting more pressure on businesses and creating more unemployment. Unless you've got third option?

Pharaoh1

Now maybe I'm missing something here but surely it would have made more sense to simply expand the existing CE scheme by 10,000 than have a whole new initiative.

As far as I know a single person on a CE scheme receives 216 euro a week for working 19.5 hrs - this scheme proposes paying 6 euro less for the same hours.
The existing scheme has experienced supervisors who know what needs to be done in local areas, have accumulated tools and equipment, storage etc..
Why duplicate all this together with the safety/first aid training/admin/payroll etc....

If I was to be cynical (and I increasingly am) I would say there are a few reasons.
1. The CE employees pay full prsi (and equivalent employers contribution) which would entitle many to go back on benefit (as opposed to allowance)

2. Many CE participants do casual work for the rest of the week in a way that an unemployed person cannot do. In many ways the CE schemes are priming the black economy.

From what I know the local CE boss tries to "recruit" individuals who will actually do some work as opposed to the ones who will do nothing or worse still engage destructive behavior - breaking equipment etc...
Seems like a kind of practical sensible approach.

Nehaxak

Anyone else find it very strange how for months now there's been thread after thread on Boards.ie and other similar Irish forums talking about silly right wing idea's like this and then suddenly lo and behold it pops up not so long afterwards as an actual policy the government are going to implement...

FF/Greens abuse right wing sympathies on forums much for their own benefit ? Hmm...

Personally I'd like to see Boards ban all government IP's accessing their forums so feeble minded people won't be influenced by spin, as if to suggest or imply there's widespread support for such ridiculous schemes, yet again...

Personally find it disgraceful, very untoward, underhanded and downright disgusting that forums likes boards are being used in this way.

Or maybe it's just a coincidence, yeah, that must be it...

Rainbow_Bright

The main issue here for the government is to have the unemployment figures lowered (if only on paper). Basically, the government will still be paying those who have been made unemployed, yet it will be in a way that allows them to remove the proposed 10,000 from the live register - thus lowering the figures. It's not a solution, simply a way of manipulating figures.

The question of suitability must also be considered. From what I've read, it appears that random jobs will be offered to people, regardless of qualifications,skills or experience (perhaps I'm missing something..?). Surely it would be more successful if time was taken to provide questionnaires to find out the skills of those signing on. This, however, is unlikely, as organisation is not a strong point of the social welfare department...

Some flexibility and respect would go a long way as opposed to expecting people to carry out jobs (for fear of lose their payments) without any consideration for personal circumstances and skills.

As someone who is unemployed, I would gladly accept an offer, depending on suitability. I don't have kids so I wouldn't have childcare to worry about. I have my own car so transport wouldn't be an issue, but what about those who have kids or don't have transport? Will allowances be made if it makes more financial sense for them to refuse a job from this scheme?

Who knows. All we (the unemployed) ask is for a little consideration & respect...

"If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that."

-Shakespeare

Sierra Oscar

Rainbow_Bright wrote: »

The main issue here for the government is to have the unemployment figures lowered (if only on paper). Basically, the government will still be paying those who have been made unemployed, yet it will be in a way that allows them to remove the proposed 10,000 from the live register - thus lowering the figures. It's not a solution, simply a way of manipulating figures.

I dont understand, surely if they are still on the doll they are still on the live register?

I think it may be a simple case of wanting some return on money handed out.

wiseguy

I got it!

This is a way for the government to look good by counting the slaves as part of the workforce so they can say "look ma' we reduced unemployment"

Clever fecks

Rainbow_Bright

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I dont understand, surely if they are still on the doll they are still on the live register?

I think it may be a simple case of wanting some return on money handed out.

Perhaps I'm wrong on that account. I heard it on a radio show today...

Sierra Oscar

Rainbow_Bright wrote: »

Perhaps I'm wrong on that account. I heard it on a radio show today...

Im not entirely sure myself, so I could be wrong.

Does anyone know for certain - will people who are taking part in this scheme be counted on the live register?

Vanhalla

I would gladly do this, but only in my industry which would be horticulture. Could i have to go and work in child care or an old folks home where i would feel like a duck out of water.
surely these idiots arent going to put guys who have been builders for the last 10yrs working in a creche!

BOHSBOHS

whos going to tell the junkies and travellers they doing 20 hours
what about single parents ....
(ill take one of the kids and you take the other - both exempt?)
will just increase the rate of "bad backs" ie more disabled claims
it will target the wrong people!

and the admin cost for something like this will be huge!



just bring in time related dole payments like most other countries?!?

first 12 months 196
after 12 months 147
after 24 months 98

must have worked for x number of months (ie paid contributions) since last claim to qualify for top rate
all other claims go to 24months rate

phase in rules may be needed

same rules for everyone whether you are disabled,parent,whatever
no means test crap.

photo id card/ fingerprinting for all claims

efb

I agree with this in principle, as long as it is work in the community or voluntary sector.

McDougal

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

whos going to tell the junkies and travellers they doing 20 hours
what about single parents ....
(ill take one of the kids and you take the other - both exempt?)
will just increase the rate of "bad backs" ie more disabled claims
it will target the wrong people!

and the admin cost for something like this will be huge!



just bring in time related dole payments like most other countries?!?

first 12 months 196
after 12 months 147
after 24 months 98

must have worked for x number of months (ie paid contributions) since last claim to qualify for top rate
all other claims go to 24months rate

phase in rules may be needed

same rules for everyone whether you are disabled,parent,whatever
no means test crap.

photo id card/ fingerprinting for all claims

Just think about your post for a moment and all the reasons why it's nonsense.

alex73

MrDarcy wrote: »

Being on state benefit does not equate with being employed. I've been on the dole, you can just about survive on the dole but you cannot really live, you are just existing week to week.

As long as someone is on 196 Euro a week, they have a serious problem and the state has a serious problem. The whole focus should be on creating sustainable jobs, not fannying around with a scheme that will actually not take a single person off the dole and will create a whole new layer of public sector form fillers and beaurocrats.

If this government wasn't so arrogant and literally lost in an ocean of it's own bullsh*t, and could listen to people who start up businesses, and work with them, we could start creating jobs immediately.

Remember when we were in "Full Employment" there were 100,000 on the dole in Ireland.

The Scheme is ok... but its too little too late.

But the unemployed should word for the allowance,, if nothing other than to be out and in contact with others.

McDougal

alex73 wrote: »

Remember when we were in "Full Employment" there were 100,000 on the dole in Ireland.

The Scheme is ok... but its too little too late.

But the unemployed should word for the allowance,, if nothing other than to be out and in contact with others.

Right

I bet when you lose your job you'll be delighted to have the state commanding you to go scrubbing graffiti off walls at 9am on a wet windy Monday morning in February.

Blackjack

McDougal wrote: »

Right

I bet when you lose your job you'll be delighted to have the state commanding you to go scrubbing graffiti off walls at 9am on a wet windy Monday morning in February.

Free money is better for the long term scratchers alright. Can't have them missing Jeremy Kyle now can we.

alex73

McDougal wrote: »

Right

I bet when you lose your job you'll be delighted to have the state commanding you to go scrubbing graffiti off walls at 9am on a wet windy Monday morning in February.

Its work isn't it.... or are you to high a mighty to get your hands dirty.

The scheme will be aimed ( I am told) at those on the dole for longer than a year. Those just unemployed are spending their time job hunting.

skearon

McDougal wrote: »

Under socialism all that type of work would be done by people who were promenent members in the PDs, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Libertas and IBEC. Mary Harney would be sent to work sweeping the streets while McDowell and Frank Fahey would shine the boots of workers.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

McDougal

alex73 wrote: »

Its work isn't it.... or are you to high a mighty to get your hands dirty.

The scheme will be aimed ( I am told) at those on the dole for longer than a year. Those just unemployed are spending their time job hunting.

Pathetic!

So anyone so doesn't want to do useless meaningless jobs in exchange for welfare is "too high and mighty"? The purpose of work isn't to just keep people busy.

The reason there are so many unemployed isn't because people are lazy, it is because there are no jobs. The unemployed must not be used as a form of forced labour. Jobs must be created and then they will fill them through choice.

McDougal

skearon wrote: »

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Said by a greedy, drunken, bi-polar, racist, chauvanistic British aristocrat who believed the British had a devine right to rule "inferior" races. Churchill hated socialism because he thought it may take away his luxory mansion and estate, his servants and most of all his cigars and single malt whiskeys.

skearon

McDougal wrote: »

Said by a greedy, drunken, bi-polar, racist, chauvanistic British aristocrat who believed the British had a devine right to rule "inferior" races. Churchill hated socialism because he thought it may take away his luxory mansion and estate, his servants and most of all his cigars and single malt whiskeys.

Churchill was in many ways a nasty man, however in the case of socialism he was spot on

WhodahWoodah

I think a lot of the people on here who are pro this scheme seem to be of the opinion that unemployed people are all lazy skobe lifers. Let's just say that a couple of years ago every single one of the people who were on the dole were actually spongers, and not mainly people who were unemployable due to personal, geographical or educational reasons. Now we have what 450,000 or so on there. That means 80%+ have only joined the register since the recession started which by definition means they're not lifers.

Still though there are a lot of people on here posting attitude about it's only right to get these work dodgers out to earn their benefits. Most of these people have spouses and children and mortgages and bills etc and as it is their life has fallen asunder. Lots of people have lost their homes or are on moratorium, have fallen behind on bills and basically had their lives destroyed by losing their jobs. Very few people WANT to be on the dole, most people are NOT spongers or fraudsters and this whole idea of kick em out to work for what was a safety net last week is quite distasteful.

Someone earlier mentioned maybe these work schemes could be something that if dole claimants wanted to they could boost their incomes with but I've spent my adult life paying tax and PRSI and all of the other stealth taxes comfortable in the knowledge that if I ever needed to I could claim jobseekers benefit while out of work until I got a new job because that's just the kind of country we live in.

They'll be suggesting we wash bedpans in return for defibrillation next time we're in the emergency room.

alex73

McDougal wrote: »

Pathetic!

So anyone so doesn't want to do useless meaningless jobs in exchange for welfare is "too high and mighty"? The purpose of work isn't to just keep people busy.

The reason there are so many unemployed isn't because people are lazy, it is because there are no jobs. The unemployed must not be used as a form of forced labour. Jobs must be created and then they will fill them through choice.

I think the scheme is not only based on getting people back to work but also on those who don't want to work and are long term unemployed.

Sombody has to do the "useless meaningless jobs"

roosh

anyone any idea what the extra cost to the state will be with regard to Insurance? Presumably these workers will need to be insured if they are under the employment of the state?

katkin

mangaroosh wrote: »

anyone any idea what the extra cost to the state will be with regard to Insurance? Presumably these workers will need to be insured if they are under the employment of the state?

I don't think insurance is going to be a big problem, O'Cuiv's dept is taking over responsibility for the Rural Social Scheme (which is an already existing work for benefit scheme for fisherman and farmers) and the Community Services Programme which provides funding for things like meals on wheels etc where they have to take on particular groups of the unemployed such as travellers, disabled etc.

Basically he is extending this scheme and removing the optional nature of it. The community groups themselves will have to pay the insurance and this will probably be covered by other grants they get.

Sigh! What a load of ****e. Winners - Pobal - a quango who run these schemes for the department - more work and justification for them! Another winner - FAS supervisers. Losers - those who want a real job; the taxpayer - paying for this nonsense; people qualified in areas such as heritage workers, childcare workers, etc and taken over by community busybodies with no qualifications but lots of political connections. Haven't we seen all this **** before, will we ever learn. Remember the meals on wheels scandal that was highlighted on Primetime. I know of someone who owns a pub and runs a CE scheme on the side getting full FAS supervisor wages, just a nicely connected person. Sick society. The pillars and busybodies are lining their own pockets aided and abetted by a fat lazy government.

Scarab80

mangaroosh wrote: »

anyone any idea what the extra cost to the state will be with regard to Insurance? Presumably these workers will need to be insured if they are under the employment of the state?

I could be wrong here, but I don't think the state use private sector insurance companies. The state claims agency, run under the umbrella of the Treasury manage and discharge all claims against the state.

I guess that just moves the question on one step though, what are the expected claims to arise from employing these extra workers.

McDougal

skearon wrote: »

Churchill was in many ways a nasty man, however in the case of socialism he was spot on

Except he wasn't really. Churchill hadn't a clue about the ordinary man and woman. It's easy to defend heriditory privilege when you're born into the right family.

flutered

the local fas supervisor is in charge of 4 different schemes, that must be a nice little earner, one time their wages were based on the number of parcipitants they had.

RealityCheck

In my opinion we either allow people to do some contribution for their entitlement or we lower it substantially.

There's no harm in a bit of work. I don't think its North Korean style workhouses the Government have in mind. There's plenty of ragworth and wild rhubarb that needs clearing from around the countryside and thats only one example.

WhodahWoodah

RealityCheck wrote: »

In my opinion we either allow people to do some contribution for their entitlement or we lower it substantially.

There's no harm in a bit of work. I don't think its North Korean style workhouses the Government have in mind. There's plenty of ragworth and wild rhubarb that needs clearing from around the countryside and thats only one example.

If you want to be out clearing rhubarb in the sleet in December to get basic sustenance then off you go-sounds great!