Budget 2013 - Troika warns welfare cuts and income tax rises look unavoidable

professore

I once worked for a small company. They were recruiting for a position and for resource reasons, only called 3 people to interview, none of which showed up. So they phoned a 4th guy. He arrived for interview and the boss welcomes him in. Then he says "I've got your CV here somewhere", starts searching high and low. Eventually he reaches in to the bin beside his desk, uncrumples and flattens out a piece of paper - you've guessed it - the candidate's CV. Then he sits up and says "So - let's start !"

The guy got the job and worked there for years.

HellFireClub

djpbarry wrote: »

First of all, I have adopted no such position - I passed no comment on your qualifications. How could I - I know nothing about them.

Secondly, to state the obvious, this is an anonymous forum - I have absolutely no means of validating your story.

Finally, as has been pointed by other posters, to assume that you should be a shoo-in for any job (or even an interview), just because you feel you're more than qualified, is being disrespectful toward other candidates (whom you know nothing about, by the way) and, quite frankly, incredibly arrogant. Based on your posts on this thread, it seems to me you have very little experience of job searching and if this is the kind of attitude you approached your applications with, it's not terribly surprising you didn't receive any replies.

I've actually very extensive experience in the PAYE world, and I got so sick of the crap that goes on in this country, that I've never looked back since I've been working for myself. I never said once on thread that I expeced any type of preferential treatment in respect of what I consider my own suitability for a job to be. But any person should be able to read a job description, digest the criteria required and apply on the basis that they have suitable qualifications and experience.

Time and time again in this country, when I was in PAYE employment, which I was working in successfully for years I might add, I found that the least important things that were taken into consideration in relation to job suitability, were basic considerations such as someone's qualification in relation to the role and their experience, and this was so profound, that what used to happen in one of the large firms that I worked in, is that a manager would seek out someone for promotion on a "hunch", and by-pass people who had relevant qualifications and experience, and promoting folks who didn't have any qualification or appropriate experience, this was all done without advertisements, interviews, etc.

This is my honest recollection of how the wheels of business turned when I last worked in a PAYE job in this country. Unfortunately I still will be maintaining that the way things are done in this country, in particular when it comes to HR, is backwards and counter productive. That has been my experience and this was within not small companies but large firms were the last thing you would expect would be this kind of gombeenism. And it wasn't just one firm either.

However, in fairness to those that disagree with me on thread, and who allege that I'm just a crank, I do accept that I probably if not certainly had a bad run of experiences in relation to ending up in workplaces where even an honest attempt at some sort of propriety was just not there at all...

djpbarry

HellFireClub wrote: »

Time and time again in this country...
...
This is my honest recollection of how the wheels of business turned when I last worked in a PAYE job in this country.

You honestly think that's unique to Ireland?

BeeDI

HellFireClub wrote: »

I've actually very extensive experience in the PAAY world, and I got so sick of the crap that goes on in this country, that I've never looked back since I've been working for myself. I never said once on thread that I expeced any type of preferential treatment in respect of what I consider my own suitability for a job to be. But any person should be able to read a job description, digest the criteria required and apply on the basis that they have suitable qualifications and experience.

Time and time again in this country, when I was in PAYE employment, which I was working in successfully for years I might add, I found that the least important things that were taken into consideration in relation to job suitability, were basic considerations such as someone's qualification in relation to the role and their experience, and this was so profound, that what used to happen in one of the large firms that I worked in, is that a manager would seek out someone for promotion on a "hunch", and by-pass people who had relevant qualifications and experience, and promoting folks who didn't have any qualification or appropriate experience, this was all done without advertisements, interviews, etc.

This is my honest recollection of how the wheels of business turned when I last worked in a PAYE job in this country. Unfortunately I still will be maintaining that the way things are done in this country, in particular when it comes to HR, is backwards and counter productive. That has been my experience and this was within not small companies but large firms were the last thing you would expect would be this kind of gombeenism. And it wasn't just one firm either.

However, in fairness to those that disagree with me on thread, and who allege that I'm just a crank, I do accept that I probably if not certainly had a bad run of experiences in relation to ending up in workplaces where even an honest attempt at some sort of propriety was just not there at all...

In my place of work, I have the task of promoting one person this week. Job is advrtised within. There are four applicants. Interviews tomorrow.
Before any interview takes place, I know who will be offered the promotion. He is least qualified on paper by a distance. He has shortest service of the four. He has three times the initiative and think outside the box of any of the others. That's based on my observations over the past two years.
The other three, to varying degrees, will talk a great talk in the interview tomorrow, and promise a lot, and so on .................... but ... I already know the score with all four.
Wish I could just cut the crap, and offer the job to the best guy, and tell the other three straignt up the score ............ but .... I have to be seen to go through the "process". It's a fiasco.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

HellFireClub wrote: »

I've actually very extensive experience in the PAAY world, and I got so sick of the crap that goes on in this country, that I've never looked back since I've been working for myself. I never said once on thread that I expeced any type of preferential treatment in respect of what I consider my own suitability for a job to be. But any person should be able to read a job description, digest the criteria required and apply on the basis that they have suitable qualifications and experience.

Time and time again in this country, when I was in PAYE employment, which I was working in successfully for years I might add, I found that the least important things that were taken into consideration in relation to job suitability, were basic considerations such as someone's qualification in relation to the role and their experience, and this was so profound, that what used to happen in one of the large firms that I worked in, is that a manager would seek out someone for promotion on a "hunch", and by-pass people who had relevant qualifications and experience, and promoting folks who didn't have any qualification or appropriate experience, this was all done without advertisements, interviews, etc.

This is my honest recollection of how the wheels of business turned when I last worked in a PAYE job in this country. Unfortunately I still will be maintaining that the way things are done in this country, in particular when it comes to HR, is backwards and counter productive. That has been my experience and this was within not small companies but large firms were the last thing you would expect would be this kind of gombeenism. And it wasn't just one firm either.

However, in fairness to those that disagree with me on thread, and who allege that I'm just a crank, I do accept that I probably if not certainly had a bad run of experiences in relation to ending up in workplaces where even an honest attempt at some sort of propriety was just not there at all...

Given your experience in the private sector, I am sure you will want to acknowledge the great job done by the Public Appointments Service in ensuring that appointments to civil service positions take place in a fair and equitable manner.

Gumbo

Godge wrote: »

Given your experience in the private sector, I am sure you will want to acknowledge the great job done by the Public Appointments Service in ensuring that appointments to civil service positions take place in a fair and equitable manner.

And fully transparent!
Each applicant gets a reply, and each applicant gets giving a position based on interview and experience etc so you know exactly how many jobs are available, or how far away from the mark you are.

kippy

HellFireClub wrote: »

I've actually very extensive experience in the PAAY world, and I got so sick of the crap that goes on in this country, that I've never looked back since I've been working for myself. I never said once on thread that I expeced any type of preferential treatment in respect of what I consider my own suitability for a job to be. But any person should be able to read a job description, digest the criteria required and apply on the basis that they have suitable qualifications and experience.

Time and time again in this country, when I was in PAYE employment, which I was working in successfully for years I might add, I found that the least important things that were taken into consideration in relation to job suitability, were basic considerations such as someone's qualification in relation to the role and their experience, and this was so profound, that what used to happen in one of the large firms that I worked in, is that a manager would seek out someone for promotion on a "hunch", and by-pass people who had relevant qualifications and experience, and promoting folks who didn't have any qualification or appropriate experience, this was all done without advertisements, interviews, etc.

This is my honest recollection of how the wheels of business turned when I last worked in a PAYE job in this country. Unfortunately I still will be maintaining that the way things are done in this country, in particular when it comes to HR, is backwards and counter productive. That has been my experience and this was within not small companies but large firms were the last thing you would expect would be this kind of gombeenism. And it wasn't just one firm either.

However, in fairness to those that disagree with me on thread, and who allege that I'm just a crank, I do accept that I probably if not certainly had a bad run of experiences in relation to ending up in workplaces where even an honest attempt at some sort of propriety was just not there at all...

I'd really love to know what you define as "gombeenism" and where you seen it at work (outside of the political arena)

I'd like to clarify that disagreeing with someone does not infer that you believe them to be a crank.

Sleepy

HellFireClub - Think about it: you need an extra pair of hands in work, the brother in law is somewhat capable in what you do for a living, are you really going to contact the Welfare office to see if someone better qualified is available for work? Or are you going to hire him and avoid the wrath of the other half?

Nepotism is only corruption when it's in the public sector, where the money paying that salary belongs to every man, woman and child in this country. When it's a private business that will survive or go bankrupt on the decisions of it's owners or the management they've entrusted it, it's none of the state's concern.

HellFireClub

Godge wrote: »

Given your experience in the private sector, I am sure you will want to acknowledge the great job done by the Public Appointments Service in ensuring that appointments to civil service positions take place in a fair and equitable manner.

How does what is in the large, a union demanded policy of promotion based on seniority/time served, equate with appointments made in a fair and equitable manner as you have suggested???

kippy

HellFireClub wrote: »

How does what is in the large, a union demanded policy of promotion based on seniority/time served, equate with appointments made in a fair and equitable manner as you have suggested???

You're living somewhat in the past by the sounds of it.

AlekSmart

kippy wrote: »

You're living somewhat in the past by the sounds of it.

Up until the last post I was somewhat engaged by HFC's approach and then it just fell asunder....

HellFireClub: How does what is in the large, a union demanded policy of promotion based on seniority/time served, equate with appointments made in a fair and equitable manner as you have suggested???

the past is indeed a different country...:)

Gumbo

HellFireClub wrote: »

How does what is in the large, a union demanded policy of promotion based on seniority/time served, equate with appointments made in a fair and equitable manner as you have suggested???

i think your thinking is all over the place here
Increments are awarded based on time served, promotions are advertised internally and interviews held accordinally.

Smidge

I read a lot of the replies on this forum just to gauge the "mood" of people but have never bothered to get involved before. I admire so many of my countrymen who feel that SW should be slashed as the people who receive it are scroungers and are having a jolly old time. I wonder how many of the people who voice that opinion on here are REALLY REALLY sure of what is around the corner for them? Are they 100% sure that on any given Friday they wont be given the bad news?

How many of these financial secure posters would know how to "live" on SW if say perhaps one of their children was in the back of the car coming home from school and whoops major accident, child paralysed from mid thoracic region. New Shiny wheelchair(supplied by SW of course). The father, the only remaining breadwinner carelessly goes and gets MS. How bloody thoughtless of him putting further burden on the taxpayer who now pay him the princely disability allowance(regardless of the fact that he had paid his taxes all of his working life). He can now sit around all day and casually think about how he is going to pay his 930 euro mortgage with the help of the 14.40 mortgage allowance he gets from the CWO. Lazy bugger, should get off his shaky medicated painful ass and do something. His wife has back injuries now from lifting their 12 year old paralysed child up and down, but hey maybe she'll scrounge off the state too and get DA?

I see that a lot of people say we all need to re-adjust as most were heavily indebted and will have to forgo their hols and new cars. On SW? Pleeease!! What planet are these people on? Could they manage holidays on SW? Oh sorry, I forgot. People on SW are on a permanent holiday,right?

My point is not everyone on SW is a junkie having a fine time. If you have children, husband, wife be very very careful about what this state does with regard to looking after it's citizens when they need it. We fought very hard to become an independent nation and have handed that over to outside forces. Would these bodies care about you?

TBH, from what people post on here they don't really care about their fellow countrymen and women just how much they have to pay.
Who re the one's really worrying about holidays now?
Slippery, slippery slope folks

djpbarry

mishkalucy wrote: »

Could they manage holidays on SW?

Quite easily, yes. I was unemployed in Ireland for a few months about two years ago and I managed to save some of my weekly allowance - that's just not right.

mishkalucy wrote: »

My point is not everyone on SW is a junkie having a fine time.

Nobody has said that they are.

woodoo

mishkalucy wrote: »

I read a lot of the replies on this forum just to gauge the "mood" of people but have never bothered to get involved before. I admire so many of my countrymen who feel that SW should be slashed as the people who receive it are scroungers and are having a jolly old time. I wonder how many of the people who voice that opinion on here are REALLY REALLY sure of what is around the corner for them? Are they 100% sure that on any given Friday they wont be given the bad news?

How many of these financial secure posters would know how to "live" on SW if say perhaps one of their children was in the back of the car coming home from school and whoops major accident, child paralysed from mid thoracic region. New Shiny wheelchair(supplied by SW of course). The father, the only remaining breadwinner carelessly goes and gets MS. How bloody thoughtless of him putting further burden on the taxpayer who now pay him the princely disability allowance(regardless of the fact that he had paid his taxes all of his working life). He can now sit around all day and casually think about how he is going to pay his 930 euro mortgage with the help of the 14.40 mortgage allowance he gets from the CWO. Lazy bugger, should get off his shaky medicated painful ass and do something. His wife has back injuries now from lifting their 12 year old paralysed child up and down, but hey maybe she'll scrounge off the state too and get DA?

I see that a lot of people say we all need to re-adjust as most were heavily indebted and will have to forgo their hols and new cars. On SW? Pleeease!! What planet are these people on? Could they manage holidays on SW? Oh sorry, I forgot. People on SW are on a permanent holiday,right?

My point is not everyone on SW is a junkie having a fine time. If you have children, husband, wife be very very careful about what this state does with regard to looking after it's citizens when they need it. We fought very hard to become an independent nation and have handed that over to outside forces. Would these bodies care about you?

TBH, from what people post on here they don't really care about their fellow countrymen and women just how much they have to pay.
Who re the one's really worrying about holidays now?
Slippery, slippery slope folks

You are refering to people on Illness benefit. Most people have a problem with long term able-bodied dolers. Not people with geunine illnessess.

Godge

HellFireClub wrote: »

How does what is in the large, a union demanded policy of promotion based on seniority/time served, equate with appointments made in a fair and equitable manner as you have suggested???

Promotions in the civil service take place in a fair and transparent manner. Structured competency interviews are the norm with interview boards featuring outside people. In fact at senior level (TLAC) in the civil service, interview boards must now have a majority of external people. Panels for promotion are established based on merit.

Have a look at the codes of practice on the CPSA website.

http://www.cpsa.ie/Default.aspx?SID=39&SSID=0

While experience is always an asset in going for any job or any promotion anywhere in the public or private sector it is a lie to state that civil service promotions are "in the large, a union demanded policy of promotion based on seniority/time served".

I am fed up with the lies and misinformation posted on these boards. It comes from both sides but particularly from those attacking the public sector. I am not a public servant anymore so it is strange having to defend them so often when I also believe that there is a lot needed to be done to reform the public service but that is the position I am put in by the lies and misinformation put forward.

A statement has been made that civil service promotions are largely based on seniority i.e. a majority. Can anyone supply ONE example of where this takes place - I am aware myself of one limited use (which has recently ceased) of seniority/suitability in one Department for a small proportion of promotions in one grade where the most senior suitable person was promoted which probably accounted for about 1 in 100 promotions in that Department until it was stopped so if the practice is so widespread the experts here on the weaknesses of the civil service should be able to identify that one and some others as well if they exist anywhere other than in their imagination.

woodoo

HellFireClub wrote: »

How does what is in the large, a union demanded policy of promotion based on seniority/time served, equate with appointments made in a fair and equitable manner as you have suggested???

That is completely untrue. Where are you getting this from?

Cuddlesworth

woodoo wrote: »

That is completely untrue. Where are you getting this from?

Just so I can understand this, your saying the promotions are reviewed primarily by outside people now. What do they base their review on if they don't know them personally? The performance reports done up by the managers? The verbal recommendation done up by the managers?

And if there is a culture of seniority, lack of real performance accountability and this system is implemented, how is it any better then what has been suggested?

Anybody I have talked to in a Civil service position for 10+ years has admitted that there is a lack of any ambition in the older workers but a clear defined promotion path for them regardless.

woodoo

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Just so I can understand this, your saying the promotions are reviewed primarily by outside people now. What do they base their review on if they don't know them personally? The performance reports done up by the managers? The verbal recommendation done up by the managers?

And if there is a culture of seniority, lack of real performance accountability and this system is implemented, how is it any better then what has been suggested?

Anybody I have talked to in a Civil service position for 10+ years has admitted that there is a lack of any ambition in the older workers but a clear defined promotion path for them regardless.

Interviews are carried out for any promotions where i work.

Godge

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Just so I can understand this, your saying the promotions are reviewed primarily by outside people now. What do they base their review on if they don't know them personally? The performance reports done up by the managers? The verbal recommendation done up by the managers?

And if there is a culture of seniority, lack of real performance accountability and this system is implemented, how is it any better then what has been suggested?

Anybody I have talked to in a Civil service position for 10+ years has admitted that there is a lack of any ambition in the older workers but a clear defined promotion path for them regardless.

Read this website to learn about civil service promotions, I have provided this link before.

http://www.cpsa.ie/Home.aspx?SID=4&SSID=0&Language=en

Then come back and ask questions based on reality rather than gossip.

Here is a question for you.

Do family businesses give jobs to family members? Yes, of course they do. Look at the Dunnes Stores group for example and see the members of the Dunne family in management positions. I can provide a link and media references if you like to back that up. That is clear evidence of appointments based on considerations other than merit in the private sector.

Nobody has yet been able to demonstrate to me one appointment in the civil service proper that has been based on considerations other than merit.

ardmacha

He can now sit around all day and casually think about how he is going to pay his 930 euro mortgage with the help of the 14.40 mortgage allowance he gets from the CWO. Lazy bugger, should get off his shaky medicated painful ass and do something.

I don't think anyone expects this.
They may have expected that someone with a mortgage would have insurance against being unable to work because of being in a wheelchair though.

Smidge

@djpbarry
I imagine that there would be a possibility of saving some of your allowance.
If you were still at home with Mom.
I really don't want to be drawn on a nonsensical point as anyone who has:
Mortgage
Oil
Electricity
Telephone
Internet
Bins
House insurance
Life insurance(which does not cover debilitating illness, just death)
Food
Childrens clothing
ETC
would not have the possibility of having any "savings" from SW
And I'm sure most people wouldn't like to give it a try.
Anything else is propaganda

The_Honeybadger

mishkalucy wrote: »

I read a lot of the replies on this forum just to gauge the "mood" of people but have never bothered to get involved before. I admire so many of my countrymen who feel that SW should be slashed as the people who receive it are scroungers and are having a jolly old time. I wonder how many of the people who voice that opinion on here are REALLY REALLY sure of what is around the corner for them? Are they 100% sure that on any given Friday they wont be given the bad news?

How many of these financial secure posters would know how to "live" on SW if say perhaps one of their children was in the back of the car coming home from school and whoops major accident, child paralysed from mid thoracic region. New Shiny wheelchair(supplied by SW of course). The father, the only remaining breadwinner carelessly goes and gets MS. How bloody thoughtless of him putting further burden on the taxpayer who now pay him the princely disability allowance(regardless of the fact that he had paid his taxes all of his working life). He can now sit around all day and casually think about how he is going to pay his 930 euro mortgage with the help of the 14.40 mortgage allowance he gets from the CWO. Lazy bugger, should get off his shaky medicated painful ass and do something. His wife has back injuries now from lifting their 12 year old paralysed child up and down, but hey maybe she'll scrounge off the state too and get DA?

I see that a lot of people say we all need to re-adjust as most were heavily indebted and will have to forgo their hols and new cars. On SW? Pleeease!! What planet are these people on? Could they manage holidays on SW? Oh sorry, I forgot. People on SW are on a permanent holiday,right?

My point is not everyone on SW is a junkie having a fine time. If you have children, husband, wife be very very careful about what this state does with regard to looking after it's citizens when they need it. We fought very hard to become an independent nation and have handed that over to outside forces. Would these bodies care about you?

TBH, from what people post on here they don't really care about their fellow countrymen and women just how much they have to pay.
Who re the one's really worrying about holidays now?
Slippery, slippery slope folks

I think this is in response to a post I made on page one of the thread, if so I was referring to people who are in employment, not those on SW, most of whom spend every penny they have coming in. Most of my friends and family still have jobs but have cut back on their spending due to the uncertainty that is about at the moment. It wasn't a dig at SW recipients at all (I have been unemployed twice in the past four years btw so I certainly can't look down my nose at anybody).

Smidge

I agree with you completely and I hate to hear myself as if I'm on a soapbox! It's very though for everyone at the moment and every single time you hear anything with regard to cuts it's SW this and SW that. People who are existing and I do mean existing are living in fear of anymore cuts. I myself never thought I would become some sort of bleeding heart liberal until life and this wonderful govt gave me some hefty kicks in the pants.
I think what annoys me most is the same old chestnuts being dragged out by going for the soft option. People had mortgages etc BEFORE they lost their income and became SW recipients, so what can they do about that? Give the keys back and get social housing which would cost the state more?
I think what upsets me most of all in the sense of begrudgery in the country.

djpbarry

mishkalucy wrote: »

@djpbarry
I imagine that there would be a possibility of saving some of your allowance.
If you were still at home with Mom.
I really don't want to be drawn on a nonsensical point as anyone who has:
Mortgage
Oil
Electricity
Telephone
Internet
Bins

About €130 per week covered rent and bills, but I could have found a cheaper place if necessary. Furthermore, rents have dropped a fair bit since.

mishkalucy wrote: »

House insurance
Life insurance(which does not cover debilitating illness, just death)

Neither were applicable to me.

mishkalucy wrote: »

Food

About €40 per week, I think.

mishkalucy wrote: »

Childrens clothing

I don’t have kids.

mishkalucy wrote: »

would not have the possibility of having any "savings" from SW

Sure would. The above figures left me spending about €170 per week, which I think is a bit of an over-estimate. I could have spent less if it had been necessary. I certainly wasn’t struggling – I could pick up a case of beer in Tesco every week and I’d still have had change out of the €200 or so I was being given.

Smidge

I think you just proved my point for me.
130 euro a week for rent and bills???
Are you seriously expecting the people on here to accept that for 520 a month every bill INCLUDING RENT was covered?
You state that this was several years ago that you were in receipt of SW.
Even a one room studio back then or a flat share was minimum 100 euro per week.
So for 30 euro you covered electric, phone/internet, heating, tv, bins, travel(I presume the bus) a week ?
I know you said you don't have children so clothing for them wasn't an issue but I presume you wore clothes yourself? Had a haircut maybe? Maybe not.
If you could really perform this extraordinary feat that so many others are struggling with, I applaud you.
I think we may have found our new Minister for Finance

thebman

djpbarry wrote: »

About €130 per week covered rent and bills, but I could have found a cheaper place if necessary. Furthermore, rents have dropped a fair bit since.
Neither were applicable to me.
About €40 per week, I think.
I don’t have kids.
Sure would. The above figures left me spending about €170 per week, which I think is a bit of an over-estimate. I could have spent less if it had been necessary. I certainly wasn’t struggling – I could pick up a case of beer in Tesco every week and I’d still have had change out of the €200 or so I was being given.

I have been in the same boat twice though I wasn't actually on social welfare but living out of my own savings.

Once your doing that, you'd be surprised what you can live on. The problem in Ireland is that if you are given free money, you'll live on it and claim that is the least you can survive on without even realising you could live on less because you are not being made do so.

Head The Wall

mishkalucy wrote: »

I think you just proved my point for me.
130 euro a week for rent and bills???
Are you seriously expecting the people on here to accept that for 520 a month every bill INCLUDING RENT was covered?
You state that this was several years ago that you were in receipt of SW.
Even a one room studio back then or a flat share was minimum 100 euro per week.

You may not be aware of this but Ireland consists of more than just Dublin, not everywhere in the country is going to cost you that much too live in and plenty of people also share houses further reducing rent and all associated bills. There's no need to be throwing in this red herring claim that every person on the dole lives in a 1 bed apartment on their own just because it seems to back up your argument.

I was renting a 4 bed house with my partner for 600 a month a few miles from Galway city which makes it 75 EU a week (my share) for a whole house.

Smidge

That depends on how much savings you had to live off in the first place that hadn't already been gobbled up just trying to keep your head above water.
As for "Free Money"?
Isn't that why we pay taxes in the first place that if God forbid you ever need assistance, its there?
I think you may have well been in a somewhat lucky situation that you could live off you savings and good for not taking assistance from the state.
Admirable.
I think you are correct we should MAKE SW recipients live off the minimum amount possible.
Guidelines should be brought in to start all new SW recipients off on 10 euro per week. See how many survive starvation and hypothermia.
You could really weed out the weak that way and bring down the SW budget pretty quick too

Head The Wall

mishkalucy wrote: »

I think you are correct we should MAKE SW recipients live off the minimum amount possible.
Guidelines should be brought in to start all new SW recipients off on 10 euro per week. See how many survive starvation and hypothermia.
You could really weed out the weak that way and bring down the SW budget pretty quick too

God you love the drama don't you, how about you stop making ridiculous assertions and add something credible to the discussion. Don't forget that Dole payments only make up around 20% of the Social Welfare spend, it's all the other allowances that need to be looked at.

Smidge

I think most people on SW are feeling the "Drama" on a daily basis. I apologise if you feel that I have been unable to add anything of benefit to the discussion and that my assertions were ridiculous, not sure as to which were ridiculous though. Maybe it's the content you don't care for because there is truth to it?
I don't live in Dublin but to the best of my knowledge Galway had some pretty expensive rental rates?
4 bed for 600 euro pm?
During the boom?
You got that for a song

Head The Wall

Somebody mentions tackling social welfare rates and you pipe in and say "sure cut everyone to 10 Eu a week and see how many die", that there is your dramatic statement and it is ridiculous beyond all belief.

I actually paid the going rate at the time for what I had, the point I was getting across was that people sharing could get a house and rent it very cheaply if they needed.

Smidge

The reason I said cut back to 10 euro a week was to stress a point.
What I would like to ask is for anyone who cares to answer and I hope the question will be regarded as constructive.
As you sit today, do you have a mortgage(my isn't ostentatious 900 pm 220k)?
Do you have children?
Do you have any loans ie credit union, credit card etc(and lets be honest here most people who are working have those minimally)?
And so on and so forth. If the worst were to happen to you and your boss called you in this coming Monday and said your services were no longer required, how would you meet those commitments?
Dont say mabs, hopeless. "your problem is you have more outgoings than you have coming in" Well Duh, I didn't to sit in this waiting room for the past 45 minutes for you break that nugget to me.
Reduce you outgoings I hear you say.
Fine.
How do I reduce my mortgage?
I don't get mortgage interest supplement as I don't qualify.
Reduce my children.
Not really an option I'm afraid.
Reduce my bills.
I put my heating on for 1 hour every evening and put up with a freezing house the rest of the time.
I still am obliged to pay my life insurance(stipulation of my mortgage).
I still pay my house insurance.
I I have to pay my bins.
Share a house?
No problem
Would you share with a family of four two of which with serious issues?
All of the above is no exaggeration, it's the plain truth.
If you ended up in the boat that a lot of people have found themselves in over the past what would be the "minimum" you could live on?

Smidge

BTW I don't love drama
I have had enough drama to last me a lifetime

Chucky the tree

mishkalucy wrote: »

The reason I said cut back to 10 euro a week was to stress a point.
What I would like to ask is for anyone who cares to answer and I hope the question will be regarded as constructive.
As you sit today, do you have a mortgage(my isn't ostentatious 900 pm 220k)?
Do you have children?
Do you have any loans ie credit union, credit card etc(and lets be honest here most people who are working have those minimally)?
And so on and so forth. If the worst were to happen to you and your boss called you in this coming Monday and said your services were no longer required, how would you meet those commitments?
Dont say mabs, hopeless. "your problem is you have more outgoings than you have coming in" Well Duh, I didn't to sit in this waiting room for the past 45 minutes for you break that nugget to me.
Reduce you outgoings I hear you say.
Fine.
How do I reduce my mortgage?
I don't get mortgage interest supplement as I don't qualify.
Reduce my children.
Not really an option I'm afraid.
Reduce my bills.
I put my heating on for 1 hour every evening and put up with a freezing house the rest of the time.
I still am obliged to pay my life insurance(stipulation of my mortgage).
I still pay my house insurance.
I I have to pay my bins.
Share a house?
No problem
Would you share with a family of four two of which with serious issues?
All of the above is no exaggeration, it's the plain truth.
If you ended up in the boat that a lot of people have found themselves in over the past what would be the "minimum" you could live on?

Sory to burst your bubble but social welfare isn't to help you pay your mortgage and various bank and credit card loans.

Smidge

And I was pulled up for ridiculous assertions!!
Pray, what exactly is it for then?

Smidge

The point of my post had you read it with an open mind or even understood what I had written was simply this;
Your obligations don't go away because you have become unemployed

Chucky the tree

mishkalucy wrote: »

And I was pulled up for ridiculous assertions!!
Pray, what exactly is it for then?

It's to pay for food until you find a job. No one said your obligations don't go away but those obligations which you got yourself into shouldn't be paid for by the state either.

max 73

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It's to pay for food until you find a job. No one said your obligations don't go away but those obligations which you got yourself into shouldn't be paid for by the state either.

At the risk of sounding facetious, those on long term social welfare or who've not worked a day in their lives DO have their bills paid by the state

Chucky the tree

max 73 wrote: »

At the risk of sounding facetious, those on long term social welfare or who've not worked a day in their lives DO have their bills paid by the state

And that's why it needs to be cut and stopped after a certain length of time.

chieftan65

I find this forum very strange. Its turning into a witch hunt against people on social welfare as far as i can see. I myself am not on sw I have a job and i am not going to come on here and attack those less fortunate. Lets be honest we all know people who have made a life long career from social welfare and never considered getting a job and paying their way in the good times. Now at the moment we have people on sw who actually need to be on it but may not want to be through no fault of their own. The thing is, its not just social welfare people who are getting it tough now, working people are under every bit as much presssure because of a lazy cowardly government who are so short on ideas the best they can do is screw more and more out of people who dont actually have it. WHY???? Because they can. nobobdy does a damn thing about it. the troika have a field day with this bunch cause they know that all they have to do is say jump and our so called elected officials are like a tribe of pygmies lost in long african grass. So less pointing the finger at each other folks and instead vent your frustrations at those who are responsible

dvpower

Godge wrote: »

Nobody has yet been able to demonstrate to me one appointment in the civil service proper that has been based on considerations other than merit.

Many civil service promotions are based on seniority, not on merit. You move ot the top of the queue, and so long as your manager says you are suitable for promotion (a formality), you get the promotion.

I previously worked in the civil service and got promoted without either any application to be promoted or any competition or interview.

woodoo

dvpower wrote: »

Many civil service promotions are based on seniority, not on merit. You move ot the top of the queue, and so long as your manager says you are suitable for promotion (a formality), you get the promotion.

I previously worked in the civil service and got promoted without either any application to be promoted or any competition or interview.

It doesn't work that way in the Public Service. The Civil Service needs to change if that's the case.

Godge

dvpower wrote: »

Many civil service promotions are based on seniority, not on merit. You move ot the top of the queue, and so long as your manager says you are suitable for promotion (a formality), you get the promotion.

I previously worked in the civil service and got promoted without either any application to be promoted or any competition or interview.

Can you name a Department and a grade where this has happened in the last ten years.

Some people think that the practices of the 1960s still exist.

eigrod

dvpower wrote: »

Many civil service promotions are based on seniority, not on merit. You move ot the top of the queue, and so long as your manager says you are suitable for promotion (a formality), you get the promotion.

That's totally and utterly wrong...and has been for a long time.

relax carry on

dvpower wrote: »

Godge wrote: »

Nobody has yet been able to demonstrate to me one appointment in the civil service proper that has been based on considerations other than merit.

Many civil service promotions are based on seniority, not on merit. You move ot the top of the queue, and so long as your manager says you are suitable for promotion (a formality), you get the promotion.

I previously worked in the civil service and got promoted without either any application to be promoted or any competition or interview.

Not sure when you left the service, but that seniority thing does not exist anymore. Granted, the seniority practice occurred in the past and we unfortunately are still dealing with that legacy.
However all promotions are now carried out through a pretty rigorous competition program.

http://hr.per.gov.ie/promotion-in-the-civil-service/

foxcoverteddy

chieftan65 wrote: »

I find this forum very strange. Its turning into a witch hunt against people on social welfare as far as i can see. I myself am not on sw I have a job and i am not going to come on here and attack those less fortunate. Lets be honest we all know people who have made a life long career from social welfare and never considered getting a job and paying their way in the good times. Now at the moment we have people on sw who actually need to be on it but may not want to be through no fault of their own. The thing is, its not just social welfare people who are getting it tough now, working people are under every bit as much presssure because of a lazy cowardly government who are so short on ideas the best they can do is screw more and more out of people who dont actually have it. WHY???? Because they can. nobobdy does a damn thing about it. the troika have a field day with this bunch cause they know that all they have to do is say jump and our so called elected officials are like a tribe of pygmies lost in long african grass. So less pointing the finger at each other folks and instead vent your frustrations at those who are responsible

Well said and brilliant post, will the other's take note we have a champion, lets have more cutting edge comments.
I could not care less about promotions, follow the post and lets get Ireland Ltd working again.
Made my day, many thanks regards Foxy:cool:

chieftan65

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

Well said and brilliant post, will the other's take note we have a champion, lets have more cutting edge comments.
I could not care less about promotions, follow the post and lets get Ireland Ltd working again.
Made my day, many thanks regards Foxy:cool:

Thank you Foxy. I only call it as i see it. I am Irish not token irish as our government has become. In my opinion it is actually foolish to even consider them as our government anymore as it seems the best description of what we have now is a very expensive committee led by an over paid chairman who gets his orders from european beauracrats. I have been an active member of the labour party for many years now but will not be paying membership this year because my idea of socialism and the labour parties seem to differ greatly. It seems they have adopted bertie ahearns idea of left wing politics.

The topic of this forum grabbed my attention, how can the troika dictate to an independant state what policies they implement? The troika are looking after their own interests and those of europes elite who gambled in the financial market and lost, but they wont lose because the troika and the people elected to look after our interests wont let them lose, instead they make sure that the ordinary irish man and woman who played no part in this high finance game pay the cost and pick up the pieces. How do they do this?? They introduce a household tax for a start, and in typical gambling terms they introduce it a little at a time to reel people in. Start of at 100 euro per year and raise it steadly till they get to 1200 to 1400 euro.
I for one will not play this game, I would prefer to do time with decent criminals than to pay for white collar criminals. I attended an anti household tax meeting last night which i'm glad to say was a great success. Perhaps this is the push irish people needed to say enough is enough???? We can only hope
As for the comments being made in this forume i.e public sector v private sector... social welfare v workers.. remember the old saying.. divide and conquer

murphaph

chieftan65 wrote: »

As for the comments being made in this forume i.e public sector v private sector... social welfare v workers.. remember the old saying.. divide and conquer

I can guarantee you the unions won't be using up their war chests to pay for striking private sector employees. They'll keep the vast majority of that money for public sector workers as they know they can inflict more damage there. Unity my b0ll0x.

I think your ideas are basically 100 years past their sale by date. Workers have all the legal protections they need these days (and yes, it was largely unions of old that got them) and stand or fall based on their own competences or lack thereof. Banding together to keep slackers or surplus to requirements employees in jobs is wrong and somebody has to pay for it-us!