Dole recipients Will have to work 19.5 hours

thebaldsoprano

McDougal wrote: »

So anyone so doesn't want to do useless meaningless jobs in exchange for welfare is "too high and mighty"?

What exactly is 'useless' or 'meaningless' about keeping the streets clean? I've had plenty of jobs that you'd probably categorise in that manner and have never looked at them that way. If I'd to do such a job again for a while I'd have no problems with it either.

Also, the rate works out at over a tenner an hour, not bad at all - and more than my girlfriend is currently earning.

Taking an attitude like that is, frankly, very high and mighty.

BarryDoodles

Being paid over 10€ an hour "and they can work part-time outside of the scheme as well" while holding onto their precious medicall cards?

....My footpaths better gleem!

"I'm sorry hun can't hang out today theres paracites on welfare depending on me"

I'm a university student surviving on next to nothing.. the opportunity cost of going to uni outweighs any benefits i gain from this education within the next five years.

Darlughda

Jessibelle wrote: »

As a recently unemployed person, I would jump at the chance to do this, but I'd like to think that if implemented, it would be in an area somewhat related to previous employment or in an area of interest to the individual, for example. I wouldn't be much use initially for physical labour, although I'd assume I'd strenghten up over time, but I am good for computer based/science based/community and people based tasks. The only problem I can see with the scheme though is that for the likes of community based projects involving older people and young children, Garda vetting is required, as well as specific training, the time and money involved to get them both may drive costs to the Exchequer up rather than down.

There are plenty of volunteer opportunities out there if you are just dying to jump at the chance check out www.volunteer.ie

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

.

"I mean i'm on the dole myself but ffs at least give us something useful to do. .......I think I'd be great working as an office admin"."

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

.

As above check out www.volunteer.ie

spoonface wrote: »

If they had some choice, they would already have a job. So why should choice come into it? It will give people back self-worth and perhaps confidence to get a job, they might get some usable skills and the country gets something back for the money it pays them. Everybody wins.

Goddamnit, why do we need some government policy in place?

There are numerous volunteer opportunities out there already, sometimes there can be hassle taking up one of these placements because the social welfare office may decide 'but you are not seeking work full time'or some such nonsense.
It is ridiculous that there are long term unemployed people who are engaged in much needed voluntary work who have to lie to the social welfare office. That needs to be straightened out first.

Anyone using the argument that it is a good thing for unemployed people is full of rubbish as there is already a glut of volunteer opportunities badly needing filled.

Meirleach

Christ Darlughda, can someone volunteer to fix up their website?

Sandvich

I don't know, if it was so easy to get people working then why do we have such a problem?

It could be a good idea though if done in moderation, it'd give people something to do. I don't quite like the idea of "forcing" qualified people to work a ****ty job after losing their job in the recession, it's a major slap in the face though I know some people here cream over how "character building" it'll be.

The other big problem here is with "their dole will be stopped".

And then what?

They'll fall out of the system and end up on the streets... some people just aren't all that fit for work and it's cheaper to keep them at home until they figure out how to fix that.

Sandvich

Spacedog wrote: »

great idea, that aughta get them pesants back where they belong, working slave labour on a famine road!!!

PRSI - is social insurance, it's an insurance policy so that if you're out of work you claim the dole. If you got car insurance and had an accident, and the company said, ok you can have a new car, but you have to pay for it. that's what this is like.

Anyone who thinks PRSI is a tax to pay for bums has been listening to too much Adrian Kennedy.

FFS:rolleyes:

Hah, looking at it this way does paint the whole thing in a pretty negative light alright.

Sandvich

Long Term Louth wrote: »

You may however present some people with the inititive to work and by doing so, make some not to feel useless, it is easy for people on social welfare to get inot a "rut", sometimes through no fault of their own.

This happens even more so with less social welfare - with no money to do anything else, you create couch potato lay abouts. This is relatively common in the UK.

Sandvich

MrDarcy wrote: »

What will end up happening in this country is some poor person will be at the end of their tether and suicidal. They are on the disability for depression, the state insert some other "medical professional", to get this person off the dole, they take their own life and low and behold 3 years later it ends up in the High Court with undisclosed damages paid out to the family and "no admission of liability" on the part of the state...

Sorry but yes, this could easily happen.

Especially if you get some tool with the idea that Condition X isn't a valid case.

Sandvich

Long Term Louth wrote: »

I am unemployed and would have no problem offering my services to such a scheme.

Why don't you turn up to the local county council offices and offer yourself up then?

Just because you have no problem doesn't make it any less of a punishment to people who have no control over their loss of job.

Sandvich

I'd also like to point out to the unemployed that are in favour of this, that there's plenty of volunteer work to be done all around the country. There are always openings there.

If you really want to make a contribution, then that's the way to do it as your contribution is very often going directly to the people that need it most. I have a friend on disability that does just that, and when I finish my FETAC course it's what I hope to do too.

I think the issue is less "I'd be up for that" and more "I like the idea of other people being forced to do that", or "This pleases my social programming as I have been taught menial labour is somehow valuable".

The Irish have a sadistic streak to them for sure...

Sandvich

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

I don't really see the advantage at all with this, apart from free employment.

It makes the right wingers jizz their pants.

I honestly think that's a big motivation behind this, as a lot of people are moaning about dole scroungers at the moment and FF generally want to try to keep face.

Sandvich

crouchingtiger wrote: »

Yes each and every one is devil spawn just as all dole recipients are poor unfortunates, members of the proletariat, victims in the face of dog capitalism.

GET REAL!

Sorry, but whether or not they're devil spawn is not the issue here.

They're costing us a lot more than dole feens.

Also, you were the one calling someone "low economic value". he merely countered your point. People who do more harm than good to the economy are still in receipt of large sums of money.

Sandvich

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.

Quotes don't win arguments, sorry. It doesn't prove anything, it's just a flowery version of saying SOSHALIZM IS BAD.

You could easily say Socialism is a philosophy of fairness, the creed of rationality, and the gospel of compassion, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of Jelly Babies.

And it would be at least as valid depending on your worldview. It's exactly this kind of nonsense that needs to be dropped from these discussions.

Tora Bora

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Not if the department of social protection decide to clamp down on those abusing certs. In a sense they have already begun clamping down with more and more independent medical officers being drafted in by the department to examine those already on certs to see if they are actually entitled to be on them.

How on earth can government clamo down on abuse of certs, when dotcors write certs for fun. It pays them! Write the cert, keep the punter coming back, charge more. Clamp down on the doctors first, and there will be less malingerers:pac:

murphaph

McDougal wrote: »

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.

So if my father works hard and establishes a business, you think it's immoral that he should be able to pass said business on to me as his son, and that said business should be broken up and given to all and sundry? Do you really believe that people should be prevented from passing on their legacies to their children? We've been doing that for millennia FFS. It's part of what defines us as human to want to take care of our own family first and foremost.

murphaph

BarryDoodles wrote: »

Being paid over 10€ an hour "and they can work part-time outside of the scheme as well" while holding onto their precious medicall cards?

....My footpaths better gleem!

"I'm sorry hun can't hang out today theres paracites on welfare depending on me"

I'm a university student surviving on next to nothing.. the opportunity cost of going to uni outweighs any benefits i gain from this education within the next five years.

Hey Barry, knowledge in itself is a precious thing. Don't try to put a monetary value on everything. I didn't need my degree for a long time after I got it (interestingly I need it in Germany to do the job I do here, but in Ireland it would be a "nice to have" thing). I still feel good about having attended uni and gained a higher education, even though I could have "made money" on the dole.

murphaph

Sandvich wrote: »

I don't know, if it was so easy to get people working then why do we have such a problem?

It could be a good idea though if done in moderation, it'd give people something to do. I don't quite like the idea of "forcing" qualified people to work a ****ty job after losing their job in the recession, it's a major slap in the face though I know some people here cream over how "character building" it'll be.

The other big problem here is with "their dole will be stopped".

And then what?

They'll fall out of the system and end up on the streets... some people just aren't all that fit for work and it's cheaper to keep them at home until they figure out how to fix that.

Germany is a pretty socialist country, but after 1 year of unemployment they start picking interviews for you to go to...and it could be anything at all. If you still fail to get a job (in McDonalds for example) they DO send you out to pick up litter. If you refuse, your benefits are cut from the whopping €354 PER MONTH until you respond. Some people in Germany receive NO WELFARE because they have chosen not to accept the T&Cs associated with it. These people reduce themselves to begging typically and very few Germans have any sympathy for them whatsoever.

I have the utmost respect for ANYONE who works. Don't care what they do, work is work in my eyes.

Welease

I think it's a great idea, and should be part of everyones social and civil responsibility...

My social responsibility (while working) is to pay taxes and PRSI, so that those who are less fortunate in society have a financial cushion to make sure they don't starve.. What's in it for me? Nothing, but its part of my social and civil responsibility.

The people (and we are talking about a very low % here) who will be asked to partake in these scheme's, and being asked to give something back to society in a way that they can afford to do (time)..

Only in this country of me feinners would people have an issue with that.

Sandvich

murphaph wrote: »

Germany is a pretty socialist country, but after 1 year of unemployment they start picking interviews for you to go to...and it could be anything at all. If you still fail to get a job (in McDonalds for example) they DO send you out to pick up litter. If you refuse, your benefits are cut from the whopping €354 PER MONTH until you respond. Some people in Germany receive NO WELFARE because they have chosen not to accept the T&Cs associated with it. These people reduce themselves to begging typically and very few Germans have any sympathy for them whatsoever.

I have the utmost respect for ANYONE who works. Don't care what they do, work is work in my eyes.

Well, I don't think that's a very good idea. I think one of the important parts of "socialism" is to "free up resources" as they say, the most important resource being People. Part of the problem is that people are sub-optimally assigned to jobs because they are forced into ones that are ill-suited to them either because of systems like this or because of social pressure. There are some people more suited to working "****ty" jobs, some people aren't.

That's one reason why I'm against this movement to push "lazy" people into labour in a recession - it's highly inefficient and suboptimal. There are only so many jobs to go around, the right wingers love to use the example of there being a job here and there, but there will always be turn over. If you try to motivate a "Lazy" person to get a job, they'll end up taking a job a harder worker could have taken. Productivity is important here with limited jobs.

Forcing people into labour(as in, to take a specific job within a very limited timeframe) comes off as quite unsocialist.

I definitely think the Germans run a tighter ship overall, but keep in mind they also, at least until recently, required everyone to do at least year in the military.

Living on the continent is generally much cheaper, too. Directly comparing payments is not a great idea.

I don't know if I'd consider Germany "Pretty socialist", either, and I'm unsure where you get that impression. More socialist in some ways than here and the US perhaps.

You're also missing out the important point here - they're not doing that work for free. The main issue here is how much this idea ****s with the economy by giving out free labour.

Sandvich

Welease wrote: »

I think it's a great idea, and should be part of everyones social and civil responsibility...

My social responsibility (while working) is to pay taxes and PRSI, so that those who are less fortunate in society have a financial cushion to make sure they don't starve.. What's in it for me? Nothing, but its part of my social and civil responsibility.

The people (and we are talking about a very low % here) who will be asked to partake in these scheme's, and being asked to give something back to society in a way that they can afford to do (time)..

Only in this country of me feinners would people have an issue with that.

There have been dozens of great arguments against this scheme and you just paint them all as "me feinners" without reading their posts.

Sandvich

murphaph wrote: »

So if my father works hard and establishes a business, you think it's immoral that he should be able to pass said business on to me as his son, and that said business should be broken up and given to all and sundry? Do you really believe that people should be prevented from passing on their legacies to their children? We've been doing that for millennia FFS. It's part of what defines us as human to want to take care of our own family first and foremost.

Do you think it's moral that people can be handed a fortune just for being n the right family, while a bunch of libertarian gowls talk about how hard work is the key to success?

Come off it.

Yes, we have been doing that for millennia. That's how we ended up with "old money".

Welease

Sandvich wrote: »

There have been dozens of great arguments against this scheme and you just paint them all as "me feinners" without reading their posts.

Not really, there are plenty of emotional arguements being presented.. I have yet to see a real bona-fide reason why this couldn't and shouldn't be implemented.. there's a big difference!

rlow68

Long Term Louth wrote: »

I dont think so see FAS website.

The CE scheme is full, being on FAS.ie website does not mean it is existing, most of what you see on the website are repetition. Another thing is if you applied they will not even try to give you a reply back either good or bad.
A friend apply for a job this morning in my presence and the job was listed about 20 minutes before the application, an automatic reply came back saying there is no vacancy at the moment. what do you say about that.

Some job advert are put on FAS.ie but those job are not existing, I dont know why these employers are doing this.

It is a good program in principle apart from the fact that it is the same government who is going to pay for it so it has not reduced the government expenditure. It would have been better to help small scale business to create real jobs.

McDougal

murphaph wrote: »

So if my father works hard and establishes a business, you think it's immoral that he should be able to pass said business on to me as his son, and that said business should be broken up and given to all and sundry? Do you really believe that people should be prevented from passing on their legacies to their children? We've been doing that for millennia FFS. It's part of what defines us as human to want to take care of our own family first and foremost.

Enough with the barstool sociology and "defines us as human" guff.

Of course it's natural to want to provide for your children but the state also has a responsibility to provide for all the children. If Mrs. Murphy wants to pass on her Fruit and Veg shop to her son then fine. However why should the robber barons be able to pass on their ill gotten gains to their offspring for generations and generations? Do you believe the Gore-Booths' descendents had a right to own the Lisadell estate in Sligo because their forefathers robbed it in the 17th century? Do you believe Paris Hilton deserves to drink, do drugs, party, sleep around and shop all day while other children all over the world are born with no chance or opportunity? Does young Murdoch deserve to inherit a media empire worth billions?

And no where in Ireland has any land or property still been in the same family for millenia. There was always theft at some point or other. I bet you are not calling for Australia to be returned to the aboriginals, Peru to the Incas or Western America to native Americans?

And no, socialists have no desire to seize Granpa's pie shop despite what the Sunday Independent might tell you. We are more interested taking natural resources such as oil and gas into public ownership and throwing out the Shell robber barons. In a socialist state, small family business would do much better. They would receive preference for state contracts over transnationals and would be protected by regulation stopping massive chains like Wal-Mart/Tesco expanding. In fact it is capitalism that will mark the death knell for small family businesses. There will never be able to compete with the economies of scale from giant corporations. Look at any high street in Ireland and all you'll see are British chains. Don't give me this crap about your "Dad's small business".

Sandvich

Welease wrote: »

Not really, there are plenty of emotional arguements being presented.. I have yet to see a real bona-fide reason why this couldn't and shouldn't be implemented.. there's a big difference!

Can you show these arguments are purely emotional and have no merit instead of just SAYING they do?

I contest that your argument is entirely emotional since you're not refuting anything that's been presented, showing your argument is not founded in reason.

Sandvich

McDougal wrote: »

Enough with the barstool sociology and "defines us as human" guff.

Of course it's natural to want to provide for your children but the state also has a responsibility to provide for all the children. If Mrs. Murphy want to pass on her Fruit and Veg shop to her son then fine. However why should the robber barons be able to pass on their ill gotten gains to their offspring for generations and generations? Do you believe the Gore-Booths' descendents had a right to own the Lisadell estate in Sligo because their forefathers robbed it in the 17th century? Do you believe Paris Hilton deserves to drink, do drugs, party, sleep around and shop all day while other children all over the world are born with no chance or opportunity? Does young Murdoch deserve to inherit a media empire worth billions?

And no where in Ireland has any land or property still in the same family for millenia. There was always theft at some point or other. I bet you are not calling for Australia to be returned to the aboriginals, Peru to the Incas or Western America to native Americans?

And no, socialists have no desire to seize Granpa's pie shop despite what the Sunday Independent might tell you. We are more interested taking natural resources such as oil and gas into public ownership and throwing out the Shell robber barons. In a socialist state, small family business would do much better. They would receive preference for state contracts over transnationals and would be protected by regulation stopping massive chains like Wal-Mart/Tesco expanding. In fact it is capitalism that will mark the death knell for small family businesses. There will never be able to compete with the economies of scale from giant corporations. Look at any high street in Ireland and all you'll see are British chains. Don't give me this crap about your "Dad's small business".

Lefties tend to be very pro small-business anyway, unlike the righties who lean more towards apologetics for big business.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sandvich

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So, we should rely on the speculative generosity of the super rich rather than getting more of that money in the hands of those who need it to begin with?

The idea of replacing welfare with private charity that many libertarians have is laughable. If they want to prove a point, then stories like this should be more common because goodness knows there's plenty of room for charity in the world regardless of welfare.

Sandvich

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also, that's $5 million for doing nothing.

But of course, it's a crime to be on welfare in a recession. It's only when less well off people get money for nothing it concerns you.

Chinasea

This will never happen = just another storm in a tea cup