So Got This Letter in the Door This Morning

Logical Fallacy

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Which is why an individual's benefits should be cut if he / she refuses to work or join one of these schemes.

The final paragraph of the letter received by the OP should read as follows:

"Please note that in the event that you do not confirm your acceptance of this offer within 14 days of the date of this letter, your social welfare payments will be cut by 50%. You will appreciate that we are inundated with requests for such opportunities from unemployed individuals. If you do not accept our current offer, your case will cease to be a priority for this office. However, in the unlikely event that we are in a position to offer you another opportunity and you do not accept same, your social welfare entitlements will be cut to zero."

What makes you think such a scheme, or such an action, will have a positive effect on unemployment levels, when the exact same scheme and action in the UK over the last year has had no impact on their rising unemployment?

What do you see as the main differences in the jobs markets between the two countries?

fishy fishy

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Which is why an individual's benefits should be cut if he / she refuses to work or join one of these schemes.

The final paragraph of the letter received by the OP should read as follows:

"Please note that in the event that you do not confirm your acceptance of this offer within 14 days of the date of this letter, your social welfare payments will be cut by 50%. You will appreciate that we are inundated with requests for such opportunities from unemployed individuals. If you do not accept our current offer, your case will cease to be a priority for this office. However, in the unlikely event that we are in a position to offer you another opportunity and you do not accept same, your social welfare entitlements will be cut to zero."

people who take up employment are supposed to get extra - why should she work without getting her extra. :roll eyes:

people in this country look at things ar*eways. Instead of looking at the "companies" who are riding on the backs of the ordinary joe soaps and getting FREE LABOUR they would rather give out about the people who have lost their jobs, or find it hard to get a job.

Why should somebody work for nothing to benefit a private company.

People on the dole include people that worked all their lives and paid their way but again in ireland it's easier to blast the people down on their luck rather than blast the people using them as slaves.

would YOU work for nothing.

fishy fishy

remember, soon YOU TOO could lose YOUR JOB - to be replaced by somebody who will do your job FOR NOTHING. If you get people doing your job FOR NOTHING anyone in paid employment should watch their backs.

Sean Bateman

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Which is why an individual's benefits should be cut if he / she refuses to work or join one of these schemes.

The final paragraph of the letter received by the OP should read as follows:

"Please note that in the event that you do not confirm your acceptance of this offer within 14 days of the date of this letter, your social welfare payments will be cut by 50%. You will appreciate that we are inundated with requests for such opportunities from unemployed individuals. If you do not accept our current offer, your case will cease to be a priority for this office. However, in the unlikely event that we are in a position to offer you another opportunity and you do not accept same, your social welfare entitlements will be cut to zero."

What makes you think such a scheme, or such an action, will have a positive effect on unemployment levels, when the exact same scheme and action in the UK over the last year has had no impact on their rising unemployment?

What do you see as the main differences in the jobs markets between the two countries?

If the OP's "on the level", he / she would have been forced to take the gig.

Other people would be forced to take opportunities to work.

Sometimes common sense is the answer - If people refuse work, force them to take it.

We're the ones subsidising these people's lives...we hold the cards therefore and should be able to make them do what we want rather than what they want.

Logical Fallacy

Sean Bateman wrote: »

If the OP's "on the level", he / she would have been forced to take the gig.

Other people would be forced to take opportunities to work.

Sometimes common sense is the answer - If people refuse work, force them to take it.

We're the ones subsidising these people's lives...we hold the cards therefore and should be able to make them do what we want rather than what they want.

Great, but that doesn't answer any of the questions I asked you. It is my personal opinion that a scheme like this MAY help a small number of people, but not many, and it does nothing to stimulate the jobs market or the economy. The example I am citing to back up my position is that of the UK market, which has seen no benefit in any area from a similar scheme.

But, I have an open mind and a good argument, well put, could sway my thinking.

As such, i shall repeat my questions...why do you feel this would work here when it hasn't worked in the UK? Also, what do you see as the fundamental difference between the home market and the UK market?

westendgirlie

Sean Bateman wrote: »

If the OP's "on the level", he / she would have been forced to take the gig.

Other people would be forced to take opportunities to work.

Sometimes common sense is the answer - If people refuse work, force them to take it.

We're the ones subsidising these people's lives...we hold the cards therefore and should be able to make them do what we want rather than what they want.

You taking the p1ss?

Lollipops23

Deleted User wrote: »

ahem no id do anything for a job that PAYES

god people are stupid work for free :rolleyes: give me strenght

Actually my boyfriend got a full-time position with his job-bridge placement after about 5months with them. He's on a decent wage, with a lot of potential to move up in the company later on.

He didn't "work for free", he just worked for his JSB and got his €50 extra for expenses.

Take your head out of your posterior and think about furthering your opportunities.

du Maurier

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Can you honestly say you would happily work a job for considerably less than minimum wage?

Have you done this yourself? What would you consider to be the advantages?

If you are to consider social welfare payments as a wage, plus a paltry extra (50 eu) included, then the JobBridge role amounts to roughly minimum wage - not great, but it's something.

The advantages would be that it's essentially a stop-gap, a temporary position, something that highlights to the next employer that you did eke out employment when the going wasn't great. Most employers would be happy to see this on a CV and would give the candidate a degree of merit/advantage when it comes to interview. Plus, as someone else said, the longer one is out of work the more staid and regressive their skills become.

B.A._Baracus

Geez .... why are people giving the op a hard time?

The jobs bridge scheme is a con. Get free work out of someone. Sure its been well noted about a cafes looking for waiters and even tesco looking for shelf packers through jobs bridge.

meoklmrk91

I honestly don't understand how people can say that the OP should have his dole cut for not wanting to do slave labour, €3.78 an hour according to my calculations.

I fully agree that people should do something to earn their keep, but to me it makes far more sense to have people do lets say 20 hours a week in their local community, anything from tidy towns to helping the elderly with gardening, setting up a community crèche, lower child care costs with profits going back into the community. If they then choose to forgo working their dole would be cut.

This is of far more benefit for local communities, and the country as a whole as opposed to the government paying people a pittance, while these companies get free labour. Maybe if companies were asked to supplement the dole by say €100 it would make more sense to the unemployed person and for countries balance sheet.

Boombastic

fishy fishy wrote: »

remember, soon YOU TOO could lose YOUR JOB - to be replaced by somebody who will do your job FOR NOTHING. If you get people doing your job FOR NOTHING anyone in paid employment should watch their backs.

€188 / week is not for nothing

Yes you get it at the moment for doing nothing, but it should be halved if you refuse to take up any type employment

dodzy

fishy fishy wrote: »

voluntary work you mean?

Some confusion and incorrect assumptions here:

The Tús scheme, for example, involves 19.5hrs per week, in a non-profit / charitable organisation within your locality. Hours are normally flexible. You get €20 extra minimum per week on top of your SW payment. Some will benefit more depending on their circumstances e.g. If the person has weekly means assessed of €80 per week, then they will end up financially better off to the tune of €100 p/week.

You must be minimum 12mths unemployed and you can not chose to participate in the scheme. It is a random selection process by the DSP.

The term is fixed at 12mths.

The amount of people involved ( actual participants ) countrywide is targetted at 5K.

Logical Fallacy

du Maurier wrote: »

If you are to consider social welfare payments as a wage, plus a paltry extra (50 eu) included, then the JobBridge role amounts to roughly minimum wage - not great, but it's something.

The advantages would be that it's essentially a stop-gap, a temporary position, something that highlights to the next employer that you did eke out employment when the going wasn't great. Most employers would be happy to see this on a CV and would give the candidate a degree of merit/advantage when it comes to interview. Plus, as someone else said, the longer one is out of work the more staid and regressive their skills become.

The OP said he gets 101 euro a week dole, plus 50 quid for 40 hours work does not equal minimum wage.

If they had requested he work the equivilent number of hours to earn the effective minimum wage then I would have no issue with it.

Lollipops23

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I honestly don't understand how people can say that the OP should have his dole cut for not wanting to do slave labour, €3.78 an hour according to my calculations.

I fully agree that people should do something to earn their keep, but to me it makes far more sense to have people do lets say 20 hours a week in their local community, anything from tidy towns to helping the elderly with gardening, setting up a community crèche, lower child care costs with profits going back into the community. If they then choose to forgo working their dole would be cut.

This is of far more benefit for local communities, and the country as a whole as opposed to the government paying people a pittance, while these companies get free labour. Maybe if companies were asked to supplement the dole by say €100 it would make more sense to the unemployed person and for countries balance sheet.

Because sometimes you just need the bit of experience or the foot in the door to add to your CV. When I was on the dole the biggest thing preventing me from landing a job was my lack of experience (fresh out of college), so this is what they're trying to tackle.

People are terrible effing precious.

Fenian Army

why should anyone work for free. This scheme is being abused by companies

dead right OP.

Boombastic

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

The OP said he gets 101 euro a week dole, plus 50 quid for 40 hours work does not equal minimum wage.

If they had requested he work the equivilent number of hours to earn the effective minimum wage then I would have no issue with it.

Yes OP also lives with his parents. So no rent, he's living with other people earning and I'm sure mammy provides the food, heat etc

(OP said mammy demands rent - at least mammy has a bit of sense and it trying her best to make him pay his way)

Why is it OK they are prepared to do nothing to earn the money they receive from the government, not even prepared to broaden their skills?:rolleyes:

fishy fishy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Actually my boyfriend got a full-time position with his job-bridge placement after about 5months with them. He's on a decent wage, with a lot of potential to move up in the company later on.

He didn't "work for free", he just worked for his JSB and got his €50 extra for expenses.

Take your head out of your posterior and think about furthering your opportunities.

at least he got his 50 Euro extra - would he have done it if he didn't.

Logical Fallacy

Boombastic wrote: »

Yes OP also lives with his parents. So no rent, he's living with other people earning and I'm sure mammy provides the food, heat etc

(OP said mammy demands rent - at least mammy has a bit of sense and it trying her best to make him pay his way)

Why is it OK they are prepared to do nothing to earn the money they receive from the government, not even prepared to broaden their skills?:rolleyes:

Hang on, so if a person working full time lives with their parents, the company can pay them less?

Or if a couple living together both have jobs, should their employers pay one of them less, or both?

As I already said, if the work done amounted to them getting minimum wage I would have less of an issue with it.

Finally, you still haven't answered the questions I asked you earlier in the thread.

fishy fishy

du Maurier wrote: »

If you are to consider social welfare payments as a wage, plus a paltry extra (50 eu) included, then the JobBridge role amounts to roughly minimum wage - not great, but it's something.

The advantages would be that it's essentially a stop-gap, a temporary position, something that highlights to the next employer that you did eke out employment when the going wasn't great. Most employers would be happy to see this on a CV and would give the candidate a degree of merit/advantage when it comes to interview. Plus, as someone else said, the longer one is out of work the more staid and regressive their skills become.

the OP said there was no mention of the extra 50 Euro :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Boombastic

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Hang on, so if a person working full time lives with their parents, the company can pay them less?

Or if a couple living together both have jobs, should their employers pay one of them less, or both?

As I already said, if the work done amounted to them getting minimum wage I would have less of an issue with it.

Finally, you still haven't answered the questions I asked you earlier in the thread.

No but the dole can

re advantages: contributing to your upkeep, mental health, learning new skills, meeting new people, networking

OldNotWIse

scudzilla wrote: »

Bollox, so this company are getting 40hrs free labour a week, that's 1 less proper job on the market, makes me sick when companies try this.

If it was a gauranteed job after a week then yeah, but no mention of that

After a week?

miss.aok

Boombastic wrote: »

Proof that the dole is too high if it stops people going back to work

wat are ya on about? are you on the dole?


did i say he/she shouldnt go back to work? I said he needs to try other options.

i have done a internship and its got me know where in the short term. i am faced with more job searching and stress of not having a fully paid job.


the majority of people on the dole want work so how exactly is it stopping people from wanting to work?


my god your ignorance. youn wouldnt say that if you were out off work or ever was. and if you were i am sure mammy and daddy helped you.

Definitly not the attitude of a unemployed person

Logical Fallacy

Boombastic wrote: »

No but the dole can

But your argument was that the person should earn the dole, in such a circumstance you would have to consider the Social Welfare to be like an employer, no?

Basically what you are saying is there should be a different set of Labour Laws for people on such schemes?

You still haven't answered some of the questions I asked you earlier in the thread btw.

dodzy

Deleted User wrote: »

ahem no id do anything for a job that PAYES

god people are stupid work for free :rolleyes: give me strenght

Ahem, I hope you at least ran a spellcheck on your CV.

Boombastic

OldNotWIse wrote: »

After a week?

:pac: Yes, there's no sense of entitlement there. I'm surprised it didn't say after lunch on the first day

OldNotWIse

Fenian Army wrote: »

why should anyone work for free. This scheme is being abused by companies

dead right OP.

He's not working for free. He's getting the dole. The only thing that will change is that he will be doing something to earn it, and possibly improving his cv at the same time

Logical Fallacy

dodzy wrote: »

Ahem, I hope you at least ran a spellcheck on your CV.

I just assumed he was making a PAYE joke.:D

St.Spodo

This sort of thing would have Connolly turning in his grave. A company would never get my labour for next to nothing. Slavery.

fishy fishy

there is still that typical "I'm alright Jack" syndrome here in Ireland I'm sad to say.

Still, at the rate things are going, those people blasting people on the dole will soon find themselves in the same position.

They will be singing from a different hymn sheet then. :D

dodzy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I just assumed he was making a PAYE joke.:D

Don't think so, unfortunately.

Boombastic

miss.aok wrote: »

wat are ya on about? are you on the dole?


did i say he/she shouldnt go back to work? I said he needs to try other options.

i have done a internship and its got me know where in the short term. i am faced with more job searching and stress of not having a fully paid job.


the majority of people on the dole want work so how exactly is it stopping people from wanting to work?


my god your ignorance. youn wouldnt say that if you were out off work or ever was. and if you were i am sure mammy and daddy helped you.

Definitly not the attitude of a unemployed person

can't go back to work because your social welfare will be affected too much = proof dole is too high

Maybe I'm not unemployed because I don't see certain things as beneath me and am prepared to put a bit of effort in, so I am not on the dole for years...alien concept?

fishy fishy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

He's not working for free. He's getting the dole. The only thing that will change is that he will be doing something to earn it, and possibly improving his cv at the same time

how much does the company contribute ?

Nothing?

he's working for free

du Maurier

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

The OP said he gets 101 euro a week dole, plus 50 quid for 40 hours work does not equal minimum wage.

If they had requested he work the equivilent number of hours to earn the effective minimum wage then I would have no issue with it.

I would agree with that. I was speaking generally about this scheme and welfare payments combined - most people's allowance coupled with the internship would amount to in and around minimum wage.

I do find the OP's circumstances a little bit irregular indeed - seems excessive in terms of the amount of hours required to work for what they are earning.

But many on here seem to be of the opinion that it's solely a clever ruse for cheap labour. It can be looked at from that perspective, fair enough, but others see it differently; perhaps those that see it as a stepping stone for something better.

The salient points would be that it's temporary, one gains some experience that they can take to the next employer, it highlights a candidate's tenacity/interest (advantages over those that sat by and didn't do much to help themselves). Plus there's always the notion that someone might be kept on after the internship.

Sean Bateman

The point is that no able bodied person should be receiving any social welfare payments without doing something in return.

An employer / employee relationship should exist between the State and the relevant individual.

People could do landscaping, deliver meals on wheels...basically whatever the State needs them to do.

The sense of entitlement among people who are reliant on society is breathtaking. You've failed citizens who basically can't look after themselves dictating what they will and won't do. They should do what they're told.

fishy fishy

a simpler way of looking at it.

There you are working away, happy as larry, when someone "on the dole" comes in and says to you boss "hey, how about this, get rid of your man there who is getting paid plenty of money, I'll do his job for nothing for ya, sure I'm on the dole, thats all I need, and you Mr. boss can keep your money in your pocket while I'm around - in fact I'll get all my mates on the dole to work for free for you as well, that way you can fire your staff".

Like to see what you think then?

fishy fishy

Sean Bateman wrote: »

The point is that no able bodied person should be receiving any social welfare payments without doing something in return.

An employer / employee relationship should exist between the State and the relevant individual.

People could do landscaping, deliver meals on wheels...basically whatever the State needs them to do.

The sense of entitlement among people who are reliant on society is breathtaking. You've failed citizens who basically can't look after themselves dictating what they will and won't do. They should do what they're told.

sounds like the North Korean system - maybe the govt could starve them as well if they don't obey. If you are okay with the govt doing this, I'm sure you will have no problem with them slashing your wages by three quarters also - after all, they may think you are getting TOO MUCH for what you do.

du Maurier

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I honestly don't understand how people can say that the OP should have his dole cut for not wanting to do slave labour, €3.78 an hour according to my calculations.

I fully agree that people should do something to earn their keep, but to me it makes far more sense to have people do lets say 20 hours a week in their local community, anything from tidy towns to helping the elderly with gardening, setting up a community crèche, lower child care costs with profits going back into the community. If they then choose to forgo working their dole would be cut.

This is of far more benefit for local communities, and the country as a whole as opposed to the government paying people a pittance, while these companies get free labour. Maybe if companies were asked to supplement the dole by say €100 it would make more sense to the unemployed person and for countries balance sheet.

Would it not be more suitable for candidates to endeavour to find an internship/employment in an area that they are interested in or at least tailored to befitting the degrees they acquired?

This community notion is somewhat artificial and contrived in my opinion.

Lollipops23

fishy fishy wrote: »

at least he got his 50 Euro extra - would he have done it if he didn't.

Most likely he would have. Not going to lie, he was stoney broke for those few months, but he got some great projects and experience on his CV during it, so even if he didn't get kept on he was in a stronger position than before.

Apart from anything else, working gives you routine and focus. I've worked some ****TY very low-paid gigs just to keep from signing on again, so I know what I'm talking about.

fishy fishy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Most likely he would have. Not going to lie, he was stoney broke for those few months, but he got some great projects and experience on his CV during it, so even if he didn't get kept on he was in a stronger position than before.

Apart from anything else, working gives you routine and focus. I've worked some ****TY very low-paid gigs just to keep from signing on again, so I know what I'm talking about.

he should do charity work for great focus and feel good factor.

people working for nothing are doing a great disservice to Ireland

Lollipops23

fishy fishy wrote: »

he should do charity work for great focus and feel good factor.

people working for nothing are doing a great disservice to Ireland

they're NOT working for nothing. The state are PAYING them for nothing.

I say this as someone who has been on JSB for a while, not a high horse who doesn't understand the situation. I literally would have jumped at a decent internship (not stacking shelves etc) where I could keep my dole.

Doc Ruby

du Maurier wrote: »

But many on here seem to be of the opinion that it's solely a clever ruse for cheap labour. It can be looked at from that perspective, fair enough, but others see it differently; perhaps those that see it as a stepping stone for something better.

In highly skilled positions maybe it is a stepping stone. Those aren't the majority of positions on offer though.

Sean Bateman wrote: »

The sense of entitlement among people who are reliant on society is breathtaking. You've failed citizens who basically can't look after themselves dictating what they will and won't do. They should do what they're told.

If just contributing financially made one a citizen, anyone who ever paid taxes here would be a citizen. Also I've no idea what a "failed citizen" is.

Listen to this carefully, those from the parish of dole money is for bums, let see will this filter through.

During the boom Ireland had near to full employment. That means if there was work people would be doing it. That doesn't mean a failed government can pawn those down on their luck off to IBEC and other such bloodless bastards.

If whatever workshy jobsworth collection of party hacks and civil servants dreamed up this scheme were actually doing what they were meant to, we'd have FAS offering relevant courses and plenty of effort being put into entrepreneurship schemes and adult education, not acting as a jobs for the lads quango.

augustus gloop

opinion is pretty split here as if OP is right or wrong.

maybe in these situations the company looking for "Free labour" paid, i dunno 60e to cover his travel and lunches that would be something.
If anyone, and i mean anyone on here was offered a job whereby they were going to be down money from their current situation, noone would take it.
even some of the more righteous posters:D

smcgiff

Not wanting to jump on the band wagon...

Unless you're on the dole a few weeks then I'd suggest you should take on the role.

I don't agree with the belief that you are working for nothing.

You will get up skilled
You will get an opportunity to prove yourself invaluable to the company long term
You will make yourself more employable, by having the edge over the large number of people looking for a job while 100% unemployed.

On the whole it sounds like a decent role, working in an office. Are there possibilities to move into sales, even if it's only commission based at start? Do you know something about cars - enough to sell them to a punter?

BTW, did the letter say you were guaranteed the job - I'd say there could be stiff competition for it. So, there's a chance you're worrying for nothing.

fishy fishy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

they're NOT working for nothing. The state are PAYING them for nothing.

I say this as someone who has been on JSB for a while, not a high horse who doesn't understand the situation. I literally would have jumped at a decent internship (not stacking shelves etc) where I could keep my dole.

sorry but you cannot automatically say that the state are paying them for nothing - they are not paying them for nothing. YOu don't know the persons circumstance - they could have been working for the last 30 years, longer than some people have been on the earth.

for people to automatically think that someone on the dole is "getting paid for nothing" is very naive narrow minded. Its a common occurrence. Some people on the dole have made more contributions to this state than the people slagging them off.

OldNotWIse

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Which is why an individual's benefits should be cut if he / she refuses to work or join one of these schemes.

The final paragraph of the letter received by the OP should read as follows:

"Please note that in the event that you do not confirm your acceptance of this offer within 14 days of the date of this letter, your social welfare payments will be cut by 50%. You will appreciate that we are inundated with requests for such opportunities from unemployed individuals. If you do not accept our current offer, your case will cease to be a priority for this office. However, in the unlikely event that we are in a position to offer you another opportunity and you do not accept same, your social welfare entitlements will be cut to zero."

I'm voting for you next election

Doc Ruby

fishy fishy wrote: »

sorry but you cannot automatically say that the state are paying them for nothing - they are not paying them for nothing. YOu don't know the persons circumstance - they could have been working for the last 30 years, longer than some people have been on the earth.

And lets not forget people like that have had their social safety net wiped out too after the government limited stamp contributions to one year not long ago. I doubt they'll be getting a refund on their PRSI paid for decades though.

dodzy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Most likely he would have. Not going to lie, he was stoney broke for those few months, but he got some great projects and experience on his CV during it, so even if he didn't get kept on he was in a stronger position than before.

Apart from anything else, working gives you routine and focus. I've worked some ****TY very low-paid gigs just to keep from signing on again, so I know what I'm talking about.

Fair play to you both; you have a great attitude. I'm sure you'll both do fine.

fishy fishy wrote: »

he should do charity work for great focus and feel good factor.

people working for nothing are doing a great disservice to Ireland

Fishy, here's one for you.

A guy takes up a placement for 19.5 hours per week in a local Community Centre as a caretaker on a programme. Pretty much works his own pattern. Might chose to do a little over 2 full days one week, and the next, well he might do mornings ( 9-1 ) or the odd afternoon to make up his hours.

During his time in the centre, he is doing various small jobs that need to be done. The odd bit of maintenance, helping out getting the astro pitches ready, he might open / lock up. He loves it. And he's getting 20 quid on top of his €188 JB.

Is he being treated unfairly in your professional opinion?

OldNotWIse

fishy fishy wrote: »

sorry but you cannot automatically say that the state are paying them for nothing - they are not paying them for nothing. YOu don't know the persons circumstance - they could have been working for the last 30 years, longer than some people have been on the earth.

for people to automatically think that someone on the dole is "getting paid for nothing" is very naive narrow minded. Its a common occurrence. Some people on the dole have made more contributions to this state than the people slagging them off.

So what are they doing? Not being smart but like...they are either being paid for nothing...or something...if it's not nothing it must be something and I would like to know what that something is...

Jaysoose

fishy fishy wrote: »

a simpler way of looking at it.

There you are working away, happy as larry, when someone "on the dole" comes in and says to you boss "hey, how about this, get rid of your man there who is getting paid plenty of money, I'll do his job for nothing for ya, sure I'm on the dole, thats all I need, and you Mr. boss can keep your money in your pocket while I'm around - in fact I'll get all my mates on the dole to work for free for you as well, that way you can fire your staff".

Like to see what you think then?

The chance of somebody coming in off a scheme like this and doing anything more than the bare minimum is fairly slim, i doubt people that are sitting in offices are quaking in their boots.

Lollipops23

fishy fishy wrote: »

sorry but you cannot automatically say that the state are paying them for nothing - they are not paying them for nothing. YOu don't know the persons circumstance - they could have been working for the last 30 years, longer than some people have been on the earth.

for people to automatically think that someone on the dole is "getting paid for nothing" is very naive narrow minded. Its a common occurrence. Some people on the dole have made more contributions to this state than the people slagging them off.

They're paying you back what you paid in in "stamps"- but it's not a bloody saving scheme for a rainy day. You're not supposed to want to stay on it for any longer than is necessary.