So Got This Letter in the Door This Morning

fishy fishy

one way to solve this.

all ye "workers" who say people on the dole have it too good and should work for nothing

I will ask ye now to go into your bosses and tell them that from now on you will work for the equivalent of dole.

After all, if you think it is good enough for others, It certainly should be good enough for yourselfs.

Practice what you preach.

Don't all jump up at the same time now.

Boombastic

fishy fishy wrote: »

one way to solve this.

all ye "workers" who say people on the dole have it too good and should work for nothing

I will ask ye now to go into your bosses and tell them that from now on you will work for the equivalent of dole.

After all, if you think it is good enough for others, It certainly should be good enough for yourselfs.

Practice what you preach.

Don't all jump up at the same time now.

So what voluntary work are you doing then?


And how do you know we're not practicing what we preach?

dodzy

fishy fishy wrote: »

one way to solve this.

all ye "workers" who say people on the dole have it too good and should work for nothing

I will ask ye now to go into your bosses and tell them that from now on you will work for the equivalent of dole.

After all, if you think it is good enough for others, It certainly should be good enough for yourselfs.

Practice what you preach.

Don't all jump up at the same time now.

How long are you out of work ?

the_syco

Griffin1988 wrote: »

In fairness, if you got in there and actually did some work, kept your head down they would likely take you on full-time on an entry level basis.

In fairness, he'll probably get to make tea 90% of the time, and his lunch will be the other 10%.

bbam wrote: »

Also other than job bridge and similar I thought the schemes were limited to community and not for profit organisations.

Want to learn how to stack shelves in Tescos, or pick up glasses in your local busy pub? Now you can learn all this, and much much less! Join job-bridge today!

Sean Bateman wrote: »

The country's bankrupt and cannot afford to subsidise wasters.

As opposed to subsiding companys who could pay for an employee to work, but instead went for the free option?

Deleted User wrote: »

but this letter make me angry the 50 wasent included lol

YOU FOOL!!!

If the fifty isn't included, it could be a real job. At least go for the interview?

Boombastic

the_syco wrote: »

In fairness, he'll probably get to make tea 90% of the time, and his lunch will be the other 10%.


Want to learn how to stack shelves in Tescos, or pick up glasses in your local busy pub? Now you can learn all this, and much much less! Join job-bridge today!


As opposed to subsiding companys who could pay for an employee to work, but instead went for the free option?


YOU FOOL!!!

If the fifty isn't included, it could be a real job. At least go for the interview?

Em, it was a position in an office they were offered - something they had not experience in. How is sitting at home on the dole better than gaining new skills?


Why are we subsiding people to do nothing?

FairytaleGirl

Could be worse.

Im on the dole in the North and they have the same scheme here - you work 40hrs a week on a scheme for your dole - no extra - which is the grand total of £53 a WEEK.

Im 24, an Arts graduate with Sales and Retail experience. Cant even get a job interview because Im OVER qualified. The companies want people to work under these schemes, or uneducated 16 year old they only have to pay £3.50 an hour.

fishy fishy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

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.

you don't seem to understand what I am saying.

later12

Boombastic wrote: »

Why are we subsiding people to do nothing?

We're not. We're subsidising them to look for employment. That's why they called them called Jobseekers' Payments.

Ireland has no shortage of former office workers. There are about 17,000 former administrative managers on the Live Register, 42,000 former clerical and secretarial workers, and 46,000 former sales workers.

Surely some of these could be retrained in the photocopying, emailing, organizational and other administrative duties that the company require and be paid a fair wage for a day's work.

Boombastic

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

Could be worse.

Im on the dole in the North and they have the same scheme here - you work 40hrs a week on a scheme for your dole - no extra - which is the grand total of £53 a WEEK.

Im 24, an Arts graduate with Sales and Retail experience. Cant even get a job interview because Im OVER qualified. The companies want people to work under these schemes, or uneducated 16 year old they only have to pay £3.50 an hour.

how much do you think an uneducated 16 year old should be paid?

fishy fishy

Boombastic wrote: »

So what voluntary work are you doing then?


And how do you know we're not practicing what we preach?

i work and thankful that I do - I don't however think I am above people who are not as fortunate as myself - remember someday it could be you.

Boombastic

fishy fishy wrote: »

i work and thankful that I do - I don't however think I am above people who are not as fortunate as myself - remember someday it could be you.

There you go again - how do you know it's not me?

miss.aok

Boombastic wrote: »

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?

ok so everyone one on the dole doesnt make a effort? i think the majority of people will disagree. some people are not on the dole by choice- i can tell you that have made a hugh effort cause i have goals for god sake- save for a house, marry the bf, and have kids and feed them using my well earned money.

for good sake the dole is not to high especailly when prices of food, petrol, clothes is like the highest in the top 5 in europe.

and some people dont even get 188 a bleedin week they get much less cause there living at home

OldNotWIse

fishy fishy wrote: »

how much does the company contribute ?

Nothing?

he's working for free

How much is he getting per week at the moment?

OldNotWIse

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?

Cross that bridge when if we come to it. I certainly wont be losing sleep worrying that someone on the dole is going to approach me boss and volunteer to do my job for nothing.

FairytaleGirl

Boombastic wrote: »

how much do you think an uneducated 16 year old should be paid?

More than you do - because by the sounds of your posts in this thread you get paid far too much and your a*sehole attitude shows it.

Boombastic

miss.aok wrote: »

ok so everyone one on the dole doesnt make a effort? i think the majority of people will disagree. some people are not on the dole by choice- i can tell you that have made a hugh effort cause i have goals for god sake- save for a house, marry the bf, and have kids and feed them using my well earned money.

for good sake the dole is not to high especailly when prices of food, petrol, clothes is like the highest in the top 5 in europe.

and some people dont even get 188 a bleedin week they get much less cause there living at home

Op is living at home jobless - was offered work and is offended

Living at home -why wouldn't you get less than someone who doesn't?


We all want nice things but you have to earn them. €50 extra / week would help with your savings, or do you think the government should pay for your desired lifestyle aswell?

Logical Fallacy

Thinking about it, should schemes like this not target the long term unemployed? Some chap who lost his job a year ago is still far more employable than a guy who hasn't worked in 10 years.

Boombastic

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

More than you do - because by the sounds of your posts in this thread you get paid far too much and your a*sehole attitude shows it.

So an uneducated 16 year old should earn millions?:pac:

@LF yes they should target long termers, especially those who were claiming during the boom

OldNotWIse

fishy fishy wrote: »

one way to solve this.

all ye "workers" who say people on the dole have it too good and should work for nothing

I will ask ye now to go into your bosses and tell them that from now on you will work for the equivalent of dole.

After all, if you think it is good enough for others, It certainly should be good enough for yourselfs.

Practice what you preach.

Don't all jump up at the same time now.

But we'd still be working...a better analogy would be telling our bosses that from now on we just want dole payment...and dont want to work...oh wait...

Logical Fallacy

Boombastic wrote: »

So an uneducated 16 year old should earn millions?:pac:

@LF yes they should target long termers, especially those who were claiming during the boom

So can we agree on the point that this scheme would benefit people a lot more if it was run far more effectively, targeting people who have been on the dole for a long time and showing a general unwillingness to work?

I'd even agree with the cutting off of payments if people refused in this instance I have to say.

FairytaleGirl

Just because someone is on the Dole - doesnt mean they dont deserve to be paid as much as everyone else per hour to work.

Its condescending frankly.

Particularly because if they could get away with it these tight arsed companies would just employ foreigners who they can pay well below minimum wage.

dodzy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Thinking about it, should schemes like this not target the long term unemployed? Some chap who lost his job a year ago is still far more employable than a guy who hasn't worked in 10 years.

Institutionalised unfortunately

JohnMarston

I'm on a jobbridge scheme at the moment. 9 months. My "employer" hasn't mucked me around with the vague promise of a job at the end of it. He has reiterated that i should be looking for a job while i'm still working here.

Essentially when on a jobbridge internship, you are still a jobseeker, and should treat the job merely as a chance to upskill, show a potential employer you are currently working, and what skills you are learning.

Logical Fallacy

dodzy wrote: »

Institutionalised unfortunately

Basically there seems to be an unwillingness from the government to tackle these people on their laziness and there seems to be an unwillingness from businesses co-operating with the scheme to engage the long term unemployed.

As such, the government just wants to fudge the numbers on the Live Register and businesses just want free work done with minimum effort and outlay on their part.

The Irish Government at it's best.

Boombastic

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

So can we agree on the point that this scheme would benefit people a lot more if it was run far more effectively, targeting people who have been on the dole for a long time and showing a general unwillingness to work?

I'd even agree with the cutting off of payments if people refused in this instance I have to say.

Yes. Definitely focus on those first


I agree with you to a certain extend about massive companies using this labour, but for some small companies they have no other option.

I think though all should be targeted or else they will become the long term unemployed before they realise it

Boombastic

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Basically there seems to be an unwillingness from the government to tackle these people on their laziness and there seems to be an unwillingness from businesses co-operating with the scheme to engage the long term unemployed.

As such, the government just wants to fudge the numbers on the Live Register and businesses just want free work done with minimum effort and outlay on their part.

The Irish Government at it's best.

I wonder why the government won't target these? Surely they're costing the country more than someone who has recently lost their job as they would be entitled to more benefits (council house, medical card etc etc)

mikemac1

I did similar in Belfast
Run by DEL, Department of Enterprise and Learning

Except it wasn't this shambles of scheme we have now

It was for graduates, you had to pass an interview, a computing test and a basic maths test to get on it.

All jobs were vetted
You won't be stacking shelves, you'd be designing the store layout for an example

Earned the grand total of about £50 a week job seekers and about £35 a week rent allowance

At the time the Irish dole was about €220.

Was an excellent scheme but not easy if you are not a local

It's cheaper up north but it's a damn struggle to live on that.

Pity jobbridge wasn't run along the same lines
Why am I seeing jobs for helping delivery drivers and cleaning in hotels?
People ripping the piss out of something that could work

dodzy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Basically there seems to be an unwillingness from the government to tackle these people on their laziness and there seems to be an unwillingness from businesses co-operating with the scheme to engage the long term unemployed.

As such, the government just wants to fudge the numbers on the Live Register and businesses just want free work done with minimum effort and outlay on their part.

The Irish Government at it's best.

Tús has some, albeit small, impact on the LTU, in that they can be selected to participate in the programme. Pure lottery. 10yrs unemployed or 1 yr unemployed. A real mix of people, age, nationality, work experience.

Logical Fallacy

Boombastic wrote: »

Yes. Definitely focus on those first


I agree with you to a certain extend about massive companies using this labour, but for some small companies they have no other option.

I think though all should be targeted or else they will become the long term unemployed before they realise it

Not really, anyone I know who has lost their job in the recession has been through a constant cycle of finding short term work, then back on the dole, or finding long term work.

I know absolutely no-one who was working pre-recession who has not made every effort to find more work. Many have even established their own businesses and are willing to take that risk rather than sit around and do nothing.

I think the concept of the Dole offering a comfortable alternative to working is a load of bull**** that is tossed around by people who want to feel better about the fact that they "have" to work.

No scheme works when you try and target everyone...and I would venture the opinion that most people here seem to be just on the OP's case because it makes them feel better about their own situation. It's an interesting divide, but many workers on AH seem to genuinely hate people on the dole, yet cannot wrap their head around the concept that many of the people on the dole right now are the people they worked with a few years ago.

For the scheme to work, it needs to have clearly defined aims and targets. Maximum value would come from targeting two groups, the long term unemployed and young people who may have finished school, can't afford college and have no work history. These are the people who need the chance or the kick up the hole.

Anything else is just political pandering to the crowd of rabblers who feel hard done by because they read made up stories in the paper and get pissed off at the content.

up for anything

Boombastic wrote: »

Y
I agree with you to a certain extend about massive companies using this labour, but for some small companies they have no other option.

If a company cannot sustain itself without availing of labour that is available free to it than it should shut down.

fishy fishy

Boombastic wrote: »

There you go again - how do you know it's not me?

your attitude towards people who have lost their jobs, tells me

Logical Fallacy

up for anything wrote: »

If a company cannot sustain itself without availing of labour that is available free to it than it should shut down.

I would agree with this. The company is being affected by two things :

1) No market for it's goods, in which case it simply cannot survive and should not be supported with government money.
2) A market exists but poor management means they are not doing well in it.

Upon closure, the market would not be effected but the lack of the company may improve the situation of competitors who can then take on more staff.

Mean while the physical space the company occupied could be used by a more enterprising individual to set up a better company which employs more people and pays more tax.

Unavailable for Comment

Anyone posting here who is an employee should be worried about what a widespread upkeep in the job bridge scheme will mean for them. If you think your job would remain secure if your employers could replace you with a similarly skilled person for a laughable percentage of what you cost them you're sadly misguided about your employer's charitable intentions.

Anyway how does it benefit the economy to have a company replace staff with "interns" when those replaced or no longer needed take their place on the Job Seekers instead?

As of May 2012, 6840 interns have been "employed" by the programme. Out of that 797 people have obtained full time work. While a success rate of 10% is commendable for a government run scheme it would be interesting to see how many companies are now on their second or third intern, still searching for the best "fit" while paying €1.28 an hour for the privilege.

Sean Bateman

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I think the concept of the Dole offering a comfortable alternative to working is a load of bull**** that is tossed around by people who want to feel better about the fact that they "have" to work

That's ridiculous.

There are clearly plenty of people in circumstances where they're better off on social welfare rather than working.

I'm amazed that people were surprised at the recent ESRI / quasi ESRI study's findings (that 44% of people are better off on social welfare).

It takes €24k of annual salary to pay childcare costs of €1,000 a month. A social welfare recipient can just mind his or her child for free.

Someone with a reasonable job has to pay rent / a mortgage. Social welfare recipients can get free accommodation / rent supplement.

Our social welfare system is way too generous and people who choose to be wasters must be hammered. Genuine hard luck cases should of course be helped out.

People in the MARP process have their lives analysed with a fine tooth comb - Why shouldn't this happen to social welfare recipients? Why should social welfare recipients be able to afford foreign holidays or drinks or cigarettes or trips to the cinema or cars? They should be surviving - Nothing more and nothing less.

bbam

I'm still thinking TROLL on this whole thread from OP..

I'd like to see which scheme OP was asked to go on that had them working 40 hours per week for a private profit making organisation for no more than their regular SW payment..

I have serious reservations on the whole job-bridge and intern schemes but it doesn't seem that OP was asked to go on one of these as they were getting no top-up on their payment...

Logical Fallacy

Sean Bateman wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

There are clearly plenty of people in circumstances where they're better off on social welfare rather than working.

I'm amazed that people were surprised at the recent ESRI / quasi ESRI study's findings (that 44% of people are better off on social welfare).

It takes €24k of annual salary to pay childcare costs of €1,000 a month. A social welfare recipient can just mind his or her child for free.

Someone with a reasonable job has to pay rent / a mortgage. Social welfare recipients can get free accommodation / rent supplement.

Our social welfare system is way too generous and people who choose to be wasters must be hammered. Genuine hard luck cases should of course be helped out.

People in the MARP process have their lives analysed with a fine tooth comb - Why shouldn't this happen to social welfare recipients? Why should social welfare recipients be able to afford foreign holidays or drinks or cigarettes or trips to the cinema or cars? They should be surviving - Nothing more and nothing less.

Sorry, not being dismissive, but you failed to answer a set of questions I put to you twice in this thread...so to be honest I don't see the point in engaging with you further in this thread when it seems you will just ignore any questions you don't want to answer.

hbr

Deleted User wrote: »

we see that your interested in working in a office

You can safely put it in the bin. That letter was obviously written by
a Nigerian scammer.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

lol yeah right man work for ****ing free get real :mad:

Ok, so you reckon it's not ok to work for free but you think it's ok to get dole for free?

I'm working to pay your dole, do you think that is fair?

Nothing in this world should be free, and handed straight into your lap.

People should have to work for what they get.

Sean Bateman

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

There are clearly plenty of people in circumstances where they're better off on social welfare rather than working.

I'm amazed that people were surprised at the recent ESRI / quasi ESRI study's findings (that 44% of people are better off on social welfare).

It takes €24k of annual salary to pay childcare costs of €1,000 a month. A social welfare recipient can just mind his or her child for free.

Someone with a reasonable job has to pay rent / a mortgage. Social welfare recipients can get free accommodation / rent supplement.

Our social welfare system is way too generous and people who choose to be wasters must be hammered. Genuine hard luck cases should of course be helped out.

People in the MARP process have their lives analysed with a fine tooth comb - Why shouldn't this happen to social welfare recipients? Why should social welfare recipients be able to afford foreign holidays or drinks or cigarettes or trips to the cinema or cars? They should be surviving - Nothing more and nothing less.

Sorry, not being dismissive, but you failed to answer a set of questions I put to you twice in this thread...so to be honest I don't see the point in engaging with you further in this thread when it seems you will just ignore any questions you don't want to answer.

Which questions?

Boombastic

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Not really, anyone I know who has lost their job in the recession has been through a constant cycle of finding short term work, then back on the dole, or finding long term work.

I know absolutely no-one who was working pre-recession who has not made every effort to find more work. Many have even established their own businesses and are willing to take that risk rather than sit around and do nothing.

I think the concept of the Dole offering a comfortable alternative to working is a load of bull**** that is tossed around by people who want to feel better about the fact that they "have" to work.



.

But for the OP is obviously the more comfortable option

fishy fishy wrote: »

your attitude towards people who have lost their jobs, tells me

It's not an attitude against people who have lost their job, it's an attitude against people who feel entitled to money for doing nothing

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?

Your mistake is to assume that the sole aim is to reduce unemployment.

The aim is to also save money for the bankrupt Exchequer.

You may dispute this but there are clearly people choosing to be on social welfare.

spacecookie555

Will people ever get over this whole 'scroungers taking my taxes' attitude. I worked while I was in school and for many years when I left school then the company folded and I lost my job. I claimed social welfare for about a year after benefits ran out, im now in education but I dont feel like a scrounger in the slightest I paid a lot of tax over the years because I earned quite a bit a week and I could have claimed for another 3years to cover the amount of tax paid if I wanted. I didnt but thats besides the point the fact is the VAST majority of people on the dole do not want to be there, theyre not just lazy theyre usually depressed and misrable.

And this sense of entitlement that people give out about cop on some people have worked 30/40years, paid hundreds of thousands in tax that well covers them for years if they wanted but the fact is THEY DONT WANT TO BE THERE. Its a small percentage of scumbags that will never work and I agree are lazy and are scroungers but nowadays its not just them on the dole, it could be your mam, your dad, your brother or sister or partner or YOU.

And btw you want to give out about scroungers get onto the politicians €800 per night for a hotel room for King Kenny?? And you give out about people getting a miserable €100 a week and who refuse to be treated like sh*t and be slave laboured out?? Dont be so stupid about things and use your brain and your cop on for the love of God. And finally try and remember that were not all born with silver spoons in our mouths and into good homes.

Boombastic

spacecookie555 wrote: »

And btw you want to give out about scroungers get onto the politicians €800 per night for a hotel room for King Kenny?? And you give out about people getting a miserable €100 a week and who refuse to be treated like sh*t and be slave laboured out??

:pac::pac:Are they brokering deals with the Troika too?


scroungers = people who have never worked / people who don't want to work / people would would prefer to be on the dole than work

If your not any of the above and on the dole while using it as a stopgap while you are really looking for work, why would you take offence?

Having any sort of a job to get you out and about of the house during the day and networking is better than sitting at home all day being depressed. One job often leads to another, they're not going to knock on the door headhunting you while you're sitting on the couch.

PickledLime

Boombastic wrote: »

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?

No, can't go back to work because they're paying less than the going rate, why should anyone work in a job where the person beside them even at minimum wage is getting at least 100 quid a week more? You do work, you're paid properly for it, it's that simple. If you're happy to be played for an utter fool and swallow everything our wonderful government throws your way without question, hooray for you.

I've read through this thread and good for you, you've managed to hold onto a job, but why does that mean people should take the first piece of shít that's thrown their way? And if the OP has worked for 6 years as a porter, they're claiming your taxes, sure, but someone was claiming their taxes for those 6 years!

No one's job is safe and karma is a right bítch, so you'd do well to come down off you high horse because it doesn't matter about your intentions and work ethic, you'll run out of luck eventually.

Boombastic

PickledLime wrote: »

No, can't go back to work because they're paying less than the going rate, why should anyone work in a job where the person beside them even at minimum wage is getting at least 100 quid a week more? You do work, you're paid properly for it, it's that simple. If you're happy to be played for an utter fool and swallow everything our wonderful government throws your way without question, hooray for you.

I've read through this thread and good for you, you've managed to hold onto a job, but why does that mean people should take the first piece of shít that's thrown their way? And if the OP has worked for 6 years as a porter, they're claiming your taxes, sure, but someone was claiming their taxes for those 6 years!

No one's job is safe and karma is a right bítch, so you'd do well to come down off you high horse because it doesn't matter about your intentions and work ethic, you'll run out of luck eventually.

Yeah, nice rant. I'm doing a job bridge scheme by the way. The way I see it it is if I'm prepared and able to do it why aren't others?

Yes the person beside me might be earning more, but so what? How does that directly effect my life? Good for them.


I'm learning new skills and keeping in the work force, what are you doing? Scratching yourself, why complaining you're not getting what you're entitled to?:rolleyes:

Karma is a b1tch and when we're both being interviewed for the same job, I wonder who the employer with be more impressed with

PickledLime

Boombastic wrote: »

Yeah, nice rant. I'm doing a job bridge scheme by the way. The way I see it it is if I'm prepared and able to do it why aren't others?

Yes the person beside me might be earning more, but so what? How does that directly effect my life? Good for them.


I'm learning new skills and keeping in the work force, what are you doing? Scratching yourself, why complaining you're not getting what you're entitled to?:rolleyes:

Karma is a b1tch and when we're both being interviewed for the same job, I wonder who the employer with be more impressed with

I'm also keeping in the work force, not by much, granted, but that's because of a downturn in business - not my choice - but it's been the same job for the last 5 years and i've worked my up to a supervisory position while studying full time. I'll be embarking on my 4th year honours degree in science come September, and i intend to pursue a post-grad once i graduate and build my savings back up. What's your point again? :rolleyes:

bbam

Boombastic wrote: »

Karma is a b1tch and when we're both being interviewed for the same job, I wonder who the employer with be more impressed with

I sincerely hope your right... But I've often found that life's a bitch too and a tosser like that sometimes knows someone on the interview panel..

BTW, Your right, I interviewed at technician and engineer level for a prominent multinational for five years and you would get the job hands down... We would always choose someone who had summer jobs and the like through school/college and kept themselves busy... They were more likely to keep themselves busy in work rather than someone who was happy to sit round.. It didn't really matter what the job was, just the type of person who kept busy was sought after...

Sadly the same MN has had a number of rounds of redundancies and are back filling some of the same positions through the job-bridge scheme, just slightly modified job titles..

Boombastic

PickledLime wrote: »

I'm also keeping in the work force, not by much, granted, but that's because of a downturn in business - not my choice - but it's been the same job for the last 5 years and i've worked my up to a supervisory position while studying full time. I'll be embarking on my 4th year honours degree in science come September, and i intend to pursue a post-grad once i graduate and build my savings back up. What's your point again? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Something about a horse with a sense of entitlement and yours was?

Odysseus

People must pay a lot of tax here, because if a thread on SW comes up it my taxes are paying for that, same with any public service thread.

I pay tax but I don't consider myself as paying for someone's dole, mine goes into a collective pool AFAIK.

dj jarvis

Boombastic wrote: »

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?

so , have you snow on your head ? you must do being so so high up on your moral high horse ,

so he should work for 40hrs a week for 100 euro ?
i dont care how much networking or experience he gets , that is just wrong

yes, people on JSA who can get training or job placement should do it , but this is just short of slavery - how much will his skills be improved by stacking shelves ? how much network will he do lifting fridges ?

you either have no sense of self worth by working under those conditions or a troll
either way, your talking out the top of your snow covered hat