Do three months of unpaid work or lose your dole: Warning to young jobless in benefit

Rigol

could the govt not set up some businesses, ones that produce exports.

old hippy

juan.kerr wrote: »

In fairness some people never wanted to work

Hell, yes. Some people don't. But in the minority.

That said, I really wish I could quit my job

juan.kerr

kneemos wrote: »

The only long term unemployed were probably unemployable,such as junkies or alcoholics.Genuinely can't fathom this theory people seem to have that there are hoards of people out there on the dole because they don't want to work.Less jobs =more unemployed.

At the time hundreds of people from Eastern European countries were coming to Ireland each week and geting jobs. The jobs were there if people wanted them.

goose2005

Stinicker wrote: »

Working for less is not acceptable and their is a social floor that needs to be preserved. Ireland is not the UK and our forefathers shot and killed the British over this type of thing, there was a time in Ireland when the British ordered people to work for food or else you could starve to death.

[citationneeded]

Seriously, if anyone was oppressing the small Irish labourer it was most likely to be a slightly wealthier Irish farmer/business owner. Few Irish rebels gave a damn about social or economic issues, it was more about God, violence and romantic notions, as they showed over the several decades they ruled the country after independence.

Ireland's social divide is much smaller than in alot of countries and most underclass people in Ireland are that way by choice and often involved in Criminality, every scanger and lowlife in Dublin has the opportunity to live dignified and to better himself, £50 a week will only generate an entire new breed of scanger.

Every country says the same thing. "Oh, in America/Africa/India they have genuine poor people, but in our country there are only poor people because they are lazy/stupid/violent"

goose2005

carlmango11 wrote: »

It's not unpaid work.

It's not slavery.

Instead of the Government paying people to do nothing all day they're paying them to work.

How the flying **** is that slavery. People need to stop living in benefit-land where the dole is a career choice that everyone is entitled to. The world doesn't owe anyone anything and if the taxpayer is going to feed, clothe and house you then why the hell shouldn't you work for it.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

It's essentially the government supplying companies with cheap labour - why hire people and pay proper wages, when the state will pay their wages for you?

Rented Mule wrote: »

Many countries require two years of service. Why not implement that instead ? Surely, two years of structured training/work experience helping to serve the needs of the country would make more sense in these economic times.

The cost of running such a program would be large, the benefits for society and for the people involved minimal. Why not give 2 years of forced labour to our well-fed wealthy 65-year-olds?

golden lane

Stinicker wrote: »

I see no problem with unemployed people being given work, however if this is to implemented then the unemployed person should be paid minimum wage of €8.65/hour for at least a minimum of 22 hours per week to equalize his unemployment payment.

Working for less is not acceptable and their is a social floor that needs to be preserved. Ireland is not the UK and our forefathers shot and killed the British over this type of thing, there was a time in Ireland when the British ordered people to work for food or else you could starve to death.

That is the sort of prevalent mentality that exists with the torys over there, the torys and thatcher destroyed the UK and Labour fell out of favor over Blair wagging Bushs tail on Iraq.

If a person goes to work then he/she deserves to be paid and not less than the market. If the UK Government tried to enforce working 30 hours for £50/week in Ireland it would lead to a similar insurrection to what their past bullyboy tactics resulted in. This won't happen in Ireland because there is a social floor and people's dignity has to be preserved. Just look at the situation in America with "poor White thrash" on the "other side of the tracks", is this something we really want in Ireland? Ireland's social divide is much smaller than in alot of countries and most underclass people in Ireland are that way by choice and often involved in Criminality, every scanger and lowlife in Dublin has the opportunity to live dignified and to better himself, £50 a week will only generate an entire new breed of scanger.

The Tory's can fup right off, give me Bertie Ahern and Fianna Fail anyday before any one of them silver spoon scummers.

it is the germans that rule ireland....not the tory party.......stop moaning...

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

Who will mind the children of the single mothers?

Dr Bollocko

jclally

kneemos wrote: »

If I understand you right you'r jumping on the Bandwagon and ignoring the fact that when we had jobs for everyone,everyone worked.

I know plenty of people who have been on the dole for 10 years plus. They got dole and worked cash in hand during the good times, and are now happy to take the dole for nothing than work for minimum wage.

And that doesnt even cover the "have a child as a career move" people. Before anyone says these dont exist, I know dozens of them... claim theyre a single parent, house sorted, dad in the back door 5 mins later

starlit

phasers wrote: »

It is actually a good idea, young people need to gain experience for their CVs and they're working in charitable organisations and stuff rather than Tesco


Seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to implement either.

Its a good idea but It's easier said than done but to be honest its a lot harder to get into a check out/sales job these days without sufficient work experience in that area, so explains why more people end up in the charity sector.

wonderfulname

I don't see this as punishing the unemployed, or slave labour, there's a lot of people in that age range that don't even have sufficient work experience to show they can turn up to work on time and do what's asked of them, it's especially tough to get a job from that position, even if you're qualified, I'd see it as a helping hand in ensuring your cv is at least considered by employers.

kneemos

jclally wrote: »

I know plenty of people who have been on the dole for 10 years plus. They got dole and worked cash in hand during the good times, and are now happy to take the dole for nothing than work for minimum wage.

And that doesnt even cover the "have a child as a career move" people. Before anyone says these dont exist, I know dozens of them... claim theyre a single parent, house sorted, dad in the back door 5 mins later

Level of long term unemployment during the boom was tiny.Are single mothers counted as unemployed?

bmcc10

100 euro a week for working 30hours i would rather sign off and get nothing than that, Any person with a job in any field if they where told they would get that for a weeks work would be insulted, Yes there is a large minority quite happy to sit and get the dole weekly but dont tar everyone with the same brush, The dole lines a horrible place to be.

neil_hosey

kneemos wrote: »

Level of long term unemployment during the boom was tiny.Are single mothers counted as unemployed?

was there not somethign like 100,000 people on the scratcher during the boom??

you call that tiny?

kneemos

neil_hosey wrote: »

was there not somethign like 100,000 people on the scratcher during the boom??

you call that tiny?

It is tiny.They were'nt always the same people.Companies close down even in a boom,people leave school or college,people return from abroad.The figure you need to look at is the long term unemployed (over a year or more)which was tiny and probably made up oe junkies and alcos.

De Hipster

juan.kerr wrote: »

At the time hundreds of people from Eastern European countries were coming to Ireland each week and getting jobs. The jobs were there if people wanted them.

Perhaps employers are being selective in who they employ in terms of nationality - it's been heard of before.

1. It is possible that incoming/other nationalities (who would not be eligible for Social Welfare payments on arrival in the country) are more likely to take on menial tasks over Irish people who may be over-educated, embarrassed in the locale or deem e.g. toilet cleaning, McDonalds, whatever beneath them.
   
2. It is easier for employers to extract 'better value for money' from vulnerable migrant workers - whether legal/illegal, English-speaking etc. Damn shame that many Irish people know their rights & refuse to be exploited in the same manner.

It's not always a simple 'Irish people are lazy' work ethic issue.

bhamsteve

Would any of the posters aged under 24 who are currently unemployed be happy to do 20 hours voluntary work a week for a fixed period of 3 or 6 months in return for getting the full rate of JSA (€188), and a valuable work reference?

steve9859

Stinicker wrote: »

I see no problem with unemployed people being given work, however if this is to implemented then the unemployed person should be paid minimum wage of €8.65/hour for at least a minimum of 22 hours per week to equalize his unemployment payment.

Working for less is not acceptable and their is a social floor that needs to be preserved. Ireland is not the UK and our forefathers shot and killed the British over this type of thing, there was a time in Ireland when the British ordered people to work for food or else you could starve to death.

That is the sort of prevalent mentality that exists with the torys over there, the torys and thatcher destroyed the UK and Labour fell out of favor over Blair wagging Bushs tail on Iraq.

If a person goes to work then he/she deserves to be paid and not less than the market. If the UK Government tried to enforce working 30 hours for £50/week in Ireland it would lead to a similar insurrection to what their past bullyboy tactics resulted in. This won't happen in Ireland because there is a social floor and people's dignity has to be preserved. Just look at the situation in America with "poor White thrash" on the "other side of the tracks", is this something we really want in Ireland? Ireland's social divide is much smaller than in alot of countries and most underclass people in Ireland are that way by choice and often involved in Criminality, every scanger and lowlife in Dublin has the opportunity to live dignified and to better himself, £50 a week will only generate an entire new breed of scanger.

The Tory's can fup right off, give me Bertie Ahern and Fianna Fail anyday before any one of them silver spoon scummers.

So you believe that people should be able to take out of the system without ever putting anything in?

This isn't just a Thatcher / Tory thing. It has broad cross party support. Labour's challenge to it yesterday was pretty halfhearted, and was just messing around at the edges really....they didn't challenge the principle.

Giving people free cash for nothing sure doesn't start them on the right path!!! That is what has led to the welfare state becoming the monster that it is

Einhard

Hmmm I must have missed the point where Ireland rejoined the UK, and was again affected by decisions made in London by the UK government. Did it happen recently?

bmcc10

bhamsteve wrote: »

Would any of the posters aged under 24 who are currently unemployed be happy to do 20 hours voluntary work a week for a fixed period of 3 or 6 months in return for getting the full rate of JSA (€188), and a valuable work reference?

Happily if it benifited you in the long run but than again it,s Ireland and it would turn into Fas and everything else it would be of no advantage to you and it would be done for the sake of doing something.

Guy:Incognito

kneemos wrote: »

Pretty much.

As far as I remember, 2.5%is as low as the unemployment rate ever got. Might even have been 4%.

No issue with these schemes as long as they are not extended to include private business like the bloody Jobbridge.

kneemos

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

As far as I remember, 2.5%is as low as the unemployment rate ever got. Might even have been 4%.

No issue with these schemes as long as they are not extended to include private business like the bloody Jobbridge.

4% is considered zero unemployment.

Guy:Incognito

kneemos wrote: »

The only long term unemployed were probably unemployable,such as junkies or alcoholics.Genuinely can't fathom this theory people seem to have that there are hoards of people out there on the dole because they don't want to work.Less jobs =more unemployed.

Theres plenty doing both, and wereall through the last 20 years.

Guy:Incognito

kneemos wrote: »

4% is considered zero unemployment.

By some people. These people are economists. A very wishy washy job title that pretty much anyone can bestow on themsleves.

Heres a couple of lines from the wiki article linked above.

"What most neoclassical economists mean by "full" employment is a rate somewhat less than 100% employment, considering slightly lower levels desirable. Others, such as James Tobin, vehemently disagree, considering full employment as 0% unemployment."

" Other economists have provided estimates between 2% and 13%, depending on the country, time period, and the various economists' political biases."

So according to some economists, we are about 2% away from full employment. Thats handy.

Conall Cernach

bhamsteve wrote: »

I'd agree, but on the other hand should someone who has never worked at least display a willingness to work before they can register as unemployed?
There's litter to be picked, old people to help with shopping, various other community based voluntary work that people could do. I'm unemployed myself at the moment and find joining the queue to sign on soul destroying.

If litter needs to be picked etc. then someone should be paid to do it. Council workers get paid for this sort of thing so if there's somebody being forced to do it for free then you are only going to create another unemployed person.

gsxr1

Its a good idea. I had to do work experience at school and had a summer job. All paying as much as the dole at the time.

Then went on to make very little as an apprentice.

Did me the world of good and made me very employable as a young lad.

Its unlikely the people they have to work for will give them zero. Im sure there will be a hot meal and maybe a few pound extra on top of the FREE money they are already receiving .

Guy:Incognito

Conall Cernach wrote: »

If litter needs to be picked etc. then someone should be paid to do it. Council workers get paid for this sort of thing so if there's somebody being forced to do it for free then you are only going to create another unemployed person.

Nobody is being forced to do it for free, they get money every week.
Plus if they dont want to do it , they dont have to, they just dont get any more free dole money.

kneemos

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theres plenty doing both, and wereall through the last 20 years.

No there was'nt because there was zero unemployment

Guy:Incognito

kneemos wrote: »

No there was'nt because there was zero unemployment

There wasnt? There was and still is.

I know of a plasterer that hasnt been out of work for any significant time in the last 25 years up until te last year -18 months despite not having a job since the 80's.

bhamsteve

bmcc10 wrote: »

Happily if it benifited you in the long run but than again it,s Ireland and it would turn into Fas and everything else it would be of no advantage to you and it would be done for the sake of doing something.

Well I can say with some confidence that someone with work experience and a good reference will be more employable than someone who has never worked.
FAS come in for a lot of stick but I've benefited from them. Me and my girlfriend did FAS courses last year, including 2 days a week work experience. She got a full time job out of it and I'm starting a degree in 2 weeks.

carlmango11

goose2005 wrote: »

It's essentially the government supplying companies with cheap labour - why hire people and pay proper wages, when the state will pay their wages for you?

The cost of running such a program would be large, the benefits for society and for the people involved minimal. Why not give 2 years of forced labour to our well-fed wealthy 65-year-olds?

Well personally I don't agree with supplying large corporations with this labour, rather put them to work on other tasks which local councils etc don't have the resources for. Keep them employed by the Government not by private companies.

And to those who seem to think that there are no long-term unemployed who just can't be bothered or that there are no single mothers living with their kids daddies, you're obviously just not exposed to it. Perhaps you live in a nice area and socialise with hard-working families but I for one know countless "lone parents" and several people who have been on the dole for 10+ years. It's bred into them and a large majority of their friends and families do the same thing.

BillyMitchel

Rented Mule wrote: »

Many countries require two years of service. Why not implement that instead ? Surely, two years of structured training/work experience helping to serve the needs of the country would make more sense in these economic times.

This is not a bad idea. I lived in a country before we're that happened and 90% of the time it works a charm because it gives discipline in their lives and structure and every person I knew who done it felt honoured to do the service for their county and this is a country that's constantly threatened with war.

Let's be honest it would cut unemployment figures and give many young men discipline and structure and this country could do with a bit of that for some of our young males.

All in all society benifits.

later12

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

By some people. These people are economists. A very wishy washy job title that pretty much anyone can bestow on themsleves.

Heres a couple of lines from the wiki article linked above.

"What most neoclassical economists mean by "full" employment is a rate somewhat less than 100% employment, considering slightly lower levels desirable. Others, such as James Tobin, vehemently disagree, considering full employment as 0% unemployment."

" Other economists have provided estimates between 2% and 13%, depending on the country, time period, and the various economists' political biases."

So according to some economists, we are about 2% away from full employment. Thats handy.

The long term unemployed, which is the one that is most important, since some level of short term unemployment is important for an economy, were about 1% of the labour force in boom times. That's not a perfect association since not all would have been part of the labour force, but it is the maximum we might say it could have been.

Dravokivich

kneemos wrote: »

Is it really difficult to understand the reason we have long and short term unemployed is because there's no jobs.

Really?

http://www.jobs.ie/ seems to list a handful or so...

steve9859

Einhard wrote: »

Hmmm I must have missed the point where Ireland rejoined the UK, and was again affected by decisions made in London by the UK government. Did it happen recently?

Oh, grow up!

bhamsteve

Conall Cernach wrote: »

If litter needs to be picked etc. then someone should be paid to do it. Council workers get paid for this sort of thing so if there's somebody being forced to do it for free then you are only going to create another unemployed person.

I would rather pick up litter for a few hours a day than queue up in the post office for a giro once a week. You can't put a figure on the self respect that comes from earning a wage.
If the state are feeding, housing, clothing you, heating your house do you really think it is unethical to ask for something back?

My name is URL

Sounds like a good idea in theory. Though if 10,000 people have their dole stopped for failing to take up unpaid employment, then what happens? Do you think they'll all just say 'fair enough' and curl up in a corner somewhere to die? No, a good many will invariably turn to crime, which has been shown to happen elsewhere. Is Ireland capable of dealing with the consequences of having more people fall way below the poverty line, and the fallout of which that entails? Increased prisoner numbers, more resources being pumped into social services for children and so on...

Surely many of the older people on long term unemployment are in fact unemployable, rather than simply unemployed? You can't expect a company to hire someone that has been out of work for the last decade when so many are seeking employment straight out of college etc. Cutting the dole is a great way to make the statistics seem less abhorrent, and tax payers will feel better about things, but the core social problems which lead to long-term unemployment will still remain, and with the shift in government spending from benefits to other social and welfare related things; I'd be skeptical of the savings that could be made overall.

Irish Guitarist

Stimpyone wrote: »

Hypothetical case.

What if a family of five lived on your street. Mammy, Daddy and three young kids. Mammy has a nice 4x4 Daddy has a BMW and a small van for his cleaning business. Only the van is taxed and none of them have an NCT.

So far this year the family have been on two foreign holidays and the Dads been away for a couple of weekends with the lads.

Daddy is drawing the dole for himself and his dependants and has been since before the Celtic tiger crash.

Is he a dole cheat?. Hypothetically of course.

He's not a dole cheat. All the vehicles are Autobots.

Guy:Incognito

My name is URL wrote: »

Sounds like a good idea in theory. Though if 10,000 people have their dole stopped for failing to take up unpaid employment, then what happens? Do you think they'll all just say 'fair enough' and curl up in a corner somewhere to die? No, a good many will invariably turn to crime, which has been shown to happen elsewhere. Is Ireland capable of dealing with the consequences of having more people fall way below the poverty line, and the fallout of which that entails? Increased prisoner numbers, more resources being pumped into social services for children and so on...
.

So effectively the country is held to ransome? "give me free money or I'll wreck the place"

Conall Cernach

bhamsteve wrote: »

I would rather pick up litter for a few hours a day than queue up in the post office for a giro once a week. You can't put a figure on the self respect that comes from earning a wage.
If the state are feeding, housing, clothing you, heating your house do you really think it is unethical to ask for something back?

And what do you say to the now unemployed person whose job it used to be to pick up litter? How would you like it if the scheme was expanded to take in whatever job you yourself hold? "Tough luck Bhamsteve we've got one of these young fellas to replace you for nothing."

gsxr1

I recently read a report on how the councils are handling the cuts .

http://www.kildare-nationalist.ie/tabId/201/itemId/15702/Council-has-no-hope-of-collecting-unpaid-household.aspx

Why am I paying for expensive stubborn council workers when I can pay some young lad (whom I am paying anyways) to clear the backlog of work.

This country is far to giving to the claimers , its about time the claimers give something back to the sugerdaddy. They get kept very well for doing nothing in society.

Bring it on. Give the tax payer more value for a change.

Dravokivich

bhamsteve wrote: »

I would rather pick up litter for a few hours a day than queue up in the post office for a giro once a week. You can't put a figure on the self respect that comes from earning a wage.
If the state are feeding, housing, clothing you, heating your house do you really think it is unethical to ask for something back?

I think you missed his point. His example meant someone with a job that can be seen to be menial/simple gets replaced by a part timer who's pulling the dole. It could have the potential to take work away from people who work, or looking to work.

The idea is a good one, but its merits rest on how it actually functions. Such as what the level of work is and how much time is put in with it.

Overall we should not be replacing an employed workforce with a dole cue. And that goes for charity organisations as well IMO.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Brilliant idea but they should apply it to all ages but introducing such a scheme would be cost effective and make sense and for that reason alone it will never be introduced here.

Kurz

The mind boggles as to why this country would want to replicate any of the social policy implemented in the UK. Between ASBOs and riots on the streets of their major cities last year, it's obvious that they're doing something wrong and have been for a long time.

We should be looking to imitate countries that keep the unemployment rate down by facilitating jobs and the creation of jobs.

Duiske

ceegee wrote: »

Yeah, hence the 0.0% unemployment during the boom...

During the boom we essentially had full employment. Many claiming unemployment during that time were short term, those between jobs etc. However, there's a small percentage of people who are classed as unemployable, and because of difficulties classifying these people they are just left on an unemployment payment. Not sure of the exact figure, but I think that a figure of less than 3.5% unemployment is actually considered full employment.

later12

Dravokivich wrote: »

Really?

http://www.jobs.ie/ seems to list a handful or so...

http://i47.tinypic.com/15o9pnn.png

The orange and blue on the top are the EU and EA areas respectively. Pink is the UK, whose low welfare benefits are often praised on this forum.

That line far below at the bottom? That's the job vacancy rate in Ireland. Way below the European average.

The data suggests that there are in or around 28 unemployed people for every job vacancy.

Roshea1992

May not be for this thread exactly, but I once had the idea of drug testing people on social welfare. If they test positive then their welfare should be either cut off or at least have a reduction. What do people think of this?

Kurz

Roshea1992 wrote: »

May not be for this thread exactly, but I once had the idea of drug testing people on social welfare. If they test positive then their welfare should be either cut off or at least have a reduction. What do people think of this?

Where does this stop? Do we test people who work in the public sector too? Or is it alright for them to take drugs with public money because they have a job?

kneemos

Roshea1992 wrote: »

May not be for this thread exactly, but I once had the idea of drug testing people on social welfare. If they test positive then their welfare should be either cut off or at least have a reduction. What do people think of this?

Include alcohol and tobacco then yeah.

Roshea1992

I never said it was okay for them to take drugs, my point is that there are most definitely people wasting money on drugs instead of what the welfare should be used for. Do what you like with your own money, but why should taxpayers pay for peoples highs?I am not targeting anyone or anything like that, I'm just saying do you not think it would save money and prevent drug usage to a point.

Roshea1992

kneemos wrote: »

Include alcohol and tobacco then yeah.

I was thinking more along the lines of saving money against illegal substances being used, however I would be all for tobacco to be included. Realistically it wouldn't happen though.