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

nice_very

Rigol wrote: »

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

I fully agree Rigol, even at a local level look at all the pubs/shops etc closing down, could some sort of agency (FAS?) not take over the leases and give people jobs, even if the businesses were run to break even. This in turn would put more money into the economy and revitalise rural towns/city centres

bmcc10

bhamsteve wrote: »

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.

Not disputing some do benefit from it but realistically theres people just doing course after course for the sake of doing something or being sent on it, I recently done one and out of a group with over 20 id honestly say around 3 actually wanted to be there hardly benifiting much really.

goose2005

nice_very wrote: »

I fully agree Rigol, even at a local level look at all the pubs/shops etc closing down, could some sort of agency (FAS?) not take over the leases and give people jobs, even if the businesses were run to break even. This in turn would put more money into the economy and revitalise rural towns/city centres

Would it? It would also put extra pressure on those pubs/shops that are still open, because their competitor next door is getting free money to stay open.

goose2005

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?

What would the overall effect of that be? More than likely, it would drive experimental/moderate users into full addiction even quicker.

zonEEE

Young people are getting hard done by on the dole as it stands at the moment. Under 22 gets 100 euro a week regards of living at home or not. Im fully in support of 100 euro while living at home but try living off 100 a week paying rent bills etc its a joke.

bhamsteve

Conall Cernach wrote: »

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."

We're getting into the hypothetical here, but would the litter picker not be public sector therefore in secure employment?
Regardless, is replacing a paid litter picker with two or three unemployed people not a sensible option when the country is on the verge of bankruptcy?
I'll speak from personal experience as I did 2 days a week work experience last year as part of a FAS course. The volunteer/ work experience person is usually supernumerary, that is in addition to the normal staffing levels.

bhamsteve

bmcc10 wrote: »

Not disputing some do benefit from it but realistically theres people just doing course after course for the sake of doing something or being sent on it, I recently done one and out of a group with over 20 id honestly say around 3 actually wanted to be there hardly benifiting much really.

From my experience there's a mixed crowd on the courses alright. I'd say that more than half the people on our course were genuinely trying to get work or get into college though.

Roshea1992

goose2005 wrote: »

What would the overall effect of that be? More than likely, it would drive experimental/moderate users into full addiction even quicker.

How would it drive them into addiction quicker? If they simply don't have the money to fund it then will they not be forced to stop usage? Also if people are on the dole, and are tested monthly or within a fair and effective timeframe, would they not use drugs in the first place.

old hippy

BillyMitchel wrote: »

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.

Forcing people to bear arms? I'd rather be back on the scratcher, thanks all the same.

Better education for people would be my wish. People get further in life with knowledge, diction and spelling in my view. :rolleyes:

Sykk

kneemos wrote: »

There are no benefit cheats anyone not working can't work.Nobody wants to live on a pittance.

There couldn't possibly be a person with this opinion able to operate a keyboard?!

I know at least 10 people who have never worked a day in their lives. Right through the boom-time, at a time when €250 was the weekly dole and if you walked into the dole office with a limp, you were given immediate disability benefit worth double that.

The problem is, those who were working mainly in construction (laying blocks on top of mortar, mixing cement etc.) were earning in excess of €700 per week.

In the real world, an (relatively) unskilled job doesn't pay this much. So when things came crashing down, or as some may call it - back to reality - the same people refuse to work in a shop or do something else for a tenner an hour, my brother wants to go to college to continue studying but won't because he doesn't want to finish and get a job starting on 25k a year after. Not after earning €1,000 a week during the good times.

It would be silly to say that most people don't need welfare and would struggle otherwise, but there are benefit cheats EVERYWHERE. Just walk out your front door.. A friend of a friend.. We all know someone who's ripping off the system.

gsxr1

Sykk wrote: »

There couldn't possibly be a person with this opinion able to operate a keyboard?!

I know at least 10 people who have never worked a day in their lives. Right through the boom-time, at a time when €250 was the weekly dole and if you walked into the dole office with a limp, you were given immediate disability benefit worth double that.

The problem is, those who were working mainly in construction (laying blocks on top of mortar, mixing cement etc.) were earning in excess of €700 per week.

In the real world, an (relatively) unskilled job doesn't pay this much. So when things came crashing down, or as some may call it - back to reality - the same people refuse to work in a shop or do something else for a tenner an hour, my brother wants to go to college to continue studying but won't because he doesn't want to finish and get a job starting on 25k a year after. Not after earning €1,000 a week during the good times.

It would be silly to say that most people don't need welfare and would struggle otherwise, but there are benefit cheats EVERYWHERE. Just walk out your front door.. A friend of a friend.. We all know someone who's ripping off the system.

It is quite insulting to skilled tradesmen for you to call them unskilled. As far as I know, it takes 5 years to finish training. And they where making a hell of a lot more than 700 a week. That's what they are making now, not then.

Tom_Cruise

gsxr1 wrote: »

It is quite insulting to skilled tradesmen for you to call them unskilled. As far as I know, it takes 5 years to finish training. And they where making a hell of a lot more than 700 a week. That's what they are making now, not then.

I agree.


I trained as a bricklayer,i wouldnt call it an unskilled trade at all,far from it.

Ive seen plenty of people walk onto a site and claim to be blocklayers/a brickie,and the standard of work was shocking - but they got away with it during the boom as the faster you got a job done the quicker you could move onto the next one = more money.

bhamsteve

bhamsteve wrote: »

Regardless, is replacing a paid litter picker with two or three unemployed people not a sensible option when the country is on the verge of bankruptcy?
I'll speak from personal experience as I did 2 days a week work experience last year as part of a FAS course. The volunteer/ work experience person is usually supernumerary, that is in addition to the normal staffing levels.

You've got one litter picker and three unemployed people. Fire the litter picker and replace him with unemployed people. What you got now? Four unemployed people. I can't see how having people work for benefits instead of having full time employees benefits a country in crisis?

kneemos

When did you get 250 on the dole Sykk?You don't get any more on disability never mind twice as much.The dole cheats you are talking about are probably unemployable and according to a previous poster amount to about 1% of the unenployed.If you have any more rumours or hearsay I'd be glad to clear it up.

Boombastic

Deleted User wrote: »

You've got one litter picker and three unemployed people. Fire the litter picker and replace him with unemployed people. What you got now? Four unemployed people. I can't see how having people work for benefits instead of having full time employees benefits a country in crisis?

Currently there are no litter pickers. The country is like a rubbish tip. We are paying people to do nothing. Instead of paying people to do nothing, they should contribute to the community by picking up the litter. We'd have a cleaner country.

Boombastic

Boombastic wrote: »

Currently there are no litter pickers. The country is like a rubbish tip. We are paying people to do nothing. Instead of paying people to do nothing, they should contribute to the community by picking up the litter. We'd have a cleaner country.

Would ya get off the litter pickers, it's the cited example.

Boombastic

Deleted User wrote: »

Would ya get off the litter pickers, it's the cited example.

I'm just using your analogy. As well as litter picking there is many other jobs which need o be done around the place.

Boombastic

Boombastic wrote: »

I'm just using your analogy. As well as litter picking there is many other jobs which need o be done around the place.

The post which I quoted referred to firing people from certain areas of employment to replace them with the unemployed. You missed the point.

Boombastic

Deleted User wrote: »

The post which I quoted referred to firing people from certain areas of employment to replace them with the unemployed. You missed the point.

I know and your missing my point that there are many jobs which would not have to replace someone because they are currently not being done

books4sale

Back in the day, everyone worked for coin, if you didn't then you didn't eat and wasted away, a form of eliminating useless genes.

Nowadays we've got stupid people making more stupid people supported by 'so called' smart people.....makes you wonder where the human race is headed.

Boombastic

Boombastic wrote: »

I know and your missing my point that there are many jobs which would not have to replace someone because they are currently not being done

Nice point bro, but has nothing to do with the post I quoted.
I'm not arguing your point, I haven't even considered it.
This is a different point.
See?

books4sale

books4sale wrote: »

Back in the day, everyone worked for coin, if you didn't then you didn't eat and wasted away, a form of eliminating useless genes.

Nowadays we've got stupid people making more stupid people supported by 'so called' smart people.....makes you wonder where the human race is headed.

To Mars.

Get Real

De Hipster wrote: »

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.

Completely disagree, it is sometimes as simple as the irish are lazy, or snobby. I'm Irish myself, recent degree in Law, working in a job you above describe as "menial". In fact, out of ten of my close friends, 9 are employed, 2 of whom are lucky to have started in their chosen career path. The other 7? Are getting their hands dirty, cleaning toilets, MDonalds, whatever is "beneath them" as you say. others who did my course in college are saying they cant get a job. OF course they can! Anyone who sees a job as beneath them in this climate should look at themselves. If you think a job's below you, you dont deserve it anyway.

Regarding your second point, my wage is 10.27 in my "menial job", 13.65 on a sunday. Over a week thats 427euro including sunday pay. Theres performance reviews and i've learned many things my degree didnt teach me. I work with many migrant workers who are paid the same as me. Many do nights for which they are paid extra, and theres the holiday pay on top, These people are mopping the floor beside you at 3 in the morning and are taking home 600 a week.

So people who believe a job is too below them, get off your backside, make some money, gain experience, it will only be temporary, and if it it develops into a long term career, what the hell are you ashamed about? Let the others sit at home complaining.

tomtherobot

books4sale wrote: »

Back in the day, everyone worked for coin, if you didn't then you didn't eat and wasted away, a form of eliminating useless genes.

Nowadays we've got stupid people making more stupid people supported by 'so called' smart people.....makes you wonder where the human race is headed.

Wouldn't all the useless genes have been eliminated long ago? I mean social welfare only came in at the turn of the last century.

That's thousands of years of useless gene elimination, how did they get back so quickly? Is it all those allowances for single mothers?