'Jaysus, I couldn’t live on €198 welfare a week'

McMurphy

Regina couldnt live on €198 a week?

This is hardly news. I mean, she had great difficulty making ends meet when there was higher sums involved.


http://www.thejournal.ie/regina-doherty-defends-liquidation-of-company-2781806-May2016/

somefeen

somefeen wrote: »

Really curious about this. I moved back in similar circumstances with a UK bank account and I don't remember being asked to shut it down.
Unless there was another reason, like you had a huge amount of savings I think you should have appealed it. Intreo are notoriously inconsistent and inefficient.

Proof that I had returned to live in Ireland permanently since I'd lived in Asia for the last decade. The problem is that it's difficult to show that I was here to stay long term. Showed them the end of my employment contract and a letter from my past employer, but that wasn't enough. They wanted bills in my name in Ireland, but I wasn't here long enough and living with my parents. (and had no income in any case).

They decided that I couldn't show that I had returned long term, and wouldn't just leave again after a few months. They wanted me to close down all foreign assets to prove that I was committed to living in Ireland. Which I wasn't prepared to do just to get the dole.

Kirby wrote: »

Thankfully, I'm not a 50 year old who lost his job and has to deal with this hypothetical problem. But I can empathize. I can imagine. I can put myself in this persons shoes.

After I do that, I'm less likely to make glib comments about how easy it is to reskill and find new work.

It's funny, but I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people on the dole, under 50. What about them?

And I have been reskilling. I did sit in front of a pc for the last two months to learn skills completely unrelated to my past work. Have you even needed or actually tried to reskill? It's not as hard as you think if you're willing to put in the consistent time and effort. definitely difficult, but hardly impossible if you need to develop an income.

Kirby

Deleted User wrote: »

It's funny, but I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people on the dole, under 50. What about them?

Well yes I suppose you could just ignore the point and reply with whataboutery. That works I guess. But it's not funny.

If you have been living while you reskilled without the dole as you claim, then clearly they were right to deny it to you as you don't need it. They would not have asked you to close your foreign bank accounts by the way.....you are telling porkies there. They would have asked for a bank statement however detailing the amount you had in it.

If you have a large amount of savings, investment or own property......you aren't eligible.

Annasopra

King of Kings wrote: »

let me tell you a dole story that is on going maybe in your wisdom you can advise me.
I know a guy been somebody I've known well for 25years.

he was made redundant in june of this year and received a decent payoff ( 50k and change - tax free of course)

He then goes to the dole and applies. He actually tells the lady when doing his application "I want to take the summer off" she replies that "you can't say that...or you won't get the dole" and then coaches him into what he "should" say.
so he starts getting his payment....


anyway fast forward some time ( to 2 weeks ago)

he then decides he wants retraining ...and the dole agree to put him on the following courses:

lean sigma 6 - green belt
Prince2
and some advanced excel course.

Now this upsets me greatly....
this guy is no long term unemployed needing retraining to get entry level ...he was a manager in tech support and can easily get some job.
These course are job-improvement rather than helping him getting a job.

But the dole are paying for him to do expensive courses (for free - approx 4.5k in total I'd say...) and in the number of courses that wouldn't be available to a working person.

What employer would pay for an employee to do these courses in quick succession...? I'd say ( I work in IT) I'd be lucky to get my employer to pay for that number of courses in 8 years....
Or if I paid myself , could I drop 4.5k and use up leave to do them on my own time....not likely....

This guy told me all this himself....so it is from the horses mouth.

I don't begrudge a 190e or so payment,...it's the extra benefits that the working person could never hope to access.
His kid will now have medical card whereas I have to fork out 60e for d-doc for mine...that rots my hole.
I'd love those courses myself they'd get me a promotion (I've prince2 already paid for myself btw) but these lads are getting them handed to them with no graft on their part.

this is part of the social welfare bill to the state...the money could be use elsewhere and layabout and chancers be told to f off and work in the mines if needs be.

Tell me my rant is unreasonable.

Actually I have no problem with socisl welfare providing training courses to people like him with him a view to him being back working as soon as possible. Absolutely no problem with it at all. It is much better to invest money in upskilling and retraining him than him going and spending 25 years on it.

123shooter

Cina wrote: »

We've the highest dole in the world.

Ireland is an expensive country to live in as well so..........

King of Kings

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Actually I have no problem with socisl welfare providing training courses to people like him with him a view to him being back working as soon as possible. Absolutely no problem with it at all. It is much better to invest money in upskilling and retraining him than him going and spending 25 years on it.

No reasonable person would expect the welfare to pay for professional exams for somebody who - by virtue of being a manager of a tech support centre I'd claim (reasonably imo) that he could get a job handy enough,
he is already skilled - as opposed to somebody who had issue getting a job (like an ex prisoner for example).

How do you feel that he has access to courses and the sheer amount of courses that a working person wouldn't...no issue at all?
Where would you draw the line? If he said he wanted to be an astronaut would you object to the dole paying for his college and subsequent nasa training?


anyway come next year he'll still be on the dole doing his courses...
only fools and horses work as they say

I think you are just being obtuse tbh but this is the internet.

neonsofa

Kirby wrote: »

Well yes I suppose you could just ignore the point and reply with whataboutery. That works I guess. But it's not funny.

If you have been living while you reskilled without the dole as you claim, then clearly they were right to deny it to you as you don't need it. They would not have asked you to close your foreign bank accounts by the way.....you are telling porkies there. They would have asked for a bank statement however detailing the amount you had in it.

If you have a large amount of savings, investment or own property......you aren't eligible.

His foreign account was not a means assessment issue, it was ties to another country which indicated that his centre of interest was not Ireland. He failed the habitual residency condition, by being unable to show that he had cut ties with previous country and now had commitments/ties here, not the means assessment.

People give out about foreign nationals claiming things here and flying in and out and not actually living here. The habitual residency condition is to put a stop to that. But it works both ways, if you're Irish you still have to fulfil the same criteria. It can be appealed though if you can submit evidence to show that you intend to remain here. Like the examples op gave- bills in your name,lease agreement, kids enrolled in school etc. Show your ties and commitments to the country basically. They may have advised that closing foreign accounts would assist in satisfying the criteria.

123shooter

You can have no money or assets and be unemployed but if your married or unmarried working partner brings home more than the married persons dole (approx 312) then the unemployed person will get no dole money or other benefits. There are lots of people fall in to this category and do not show up as unemployed simply because they are exempt from benefits.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

Well yes I suppose you could just ignore the point and reply with whataboutery. That works I guess. But it's not funny.

What was your point? Deciding that people 50 or above will find it difficult to reskill. Okay.. I accepted that by pointing to those under 50, as being able to reskill.

You seem to be making the point that just because it's very difficult for anyone 50/older to reskill, then it must be too difficult for anyone below that age.

If you have been living while you reskilled without the dole as you claim, then clearly they were right to deny it to you as you don't need it.

Of course, I came back with some savings. I didn't come back flat broke. I've been living with my parents and paying for part of the overall expenses from my savings. By the end of three months, those savings have been thinned considerably, due to costs from my mortgage (since I no longer had an income to pay the costs beyond my low rental income), and other expenses.

They would not have asked you to close your foreign bank accounts by the way.....you are telling porkies there. They would have asked for a bank statement however detailing the amount you had in it.

If you have a large amount of savings, investment or own property......you aren't eligible.

I provided statements of all my assets and savings. They denied my application because I could not prove that I was going to stay long-term in Ireland. They required a paper trail to show that, and wanted me to close all foreign accounts to prove my sincerity.

To close my Asian accounts requires me to physically walk into the local branches, and I can't afford to fly back there to 4 different cities, to do it.

And No... no porkies. Doesn't matter now anyway... I'm not complaining about the Dole application process or its screening of applicants. My point is that reskilling is definitely possible, and a definite option.

neonsofa

123shooter wrote: »

You can have no money or assets and be unemployed but if your married or unmarried working partner brings home more than the married persons dole (approx 312) then the unemployed person will get no dole money or other benefits. There are lots of people fall in to this category and do not show up as unemployed simply because they are exempt from benefits.

Also a lot of "qualified adults" who are on their partners claim, who aren't classed as unemployed but actually are, just not claiming a payment in their own right and therefore not on live register.

123shooter

neonsofa wrote: »

Also a lot of "qualified adults" who are on their partners claim, who aren't classed as unemployed but actually are, just not claiming a payment in their own right and therefore not on live register.

Yep suits the government as regards how good a job they are doing (not) just like when they championed falls in unemployment but the reality was people who weren't working were actually emigrating.

The hidden tragedy here is cohabiting people have no rights but when it comes to dole and other benefits they are classed as a married couple and deprived of any benefits usually available and to which they have actually contributed to while they were working and taxed as a single person.

nice_guy80

if I wasn't paying rent then €193 pw would be quite comfortable

about €50 on food for the week
leaving €143 for cans and other stuff
sweet

btw its MORE than half of what my oh gets after working a full week 40 hours and paying prsi and tax

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

pilly wrote: »

What's wrong with it is it costs the state money, if someone is on leave someone else has to do the job, am I right? Otherwise there's no need for that job.

I think you'll also find that the vast majority of private sector jobs do not offer paid sick leave and those that do would in no way tolerate people taking the amount that the average civil servant takes.

Okay, fair enough on your point about some civil servants working hard. If you mean doctors, nurses, Gardaí etc. I agree with you. If you mean those in office based roles I have to say I've never ever met one who works hard.

The average civil servant doesn't take a lot of sick leave. There are definitely plenty who do take a lot of it, and it is abused by some, but it is wrong to insinuate that everyone is at it.

On the parental leave issue, if someone takes it where they are off for the summer, then yes, their role is filled by a temporary person, which costs money - but this is offset by the fact that the person on leave isn't being paid. So I don't see your point on that one.

Its easy to generalise that office based civil servants have a cushy number. Some do, some don't. Try having the head eaten off you by a member of the public in a dole office and you'll change your mind about some of them at least.

I'm not attempting to tell you that you are completely wrong about everything, but you're pigeonholing thousands of people and their jobs unfairly. There has been a lot of utter ****e spewed about the wider public service in general in the past few years in an attempt to divide and conquer (it seems to have worked very well), but this kind of thing isn't particularly helpful.

pilly

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

The average civil servant doesn't take a lot of sick leave. There are definitely plenty who do take a lot of it, and it is abused by some, but it is wrong to insinuate that everyone is at it.

On the parental leave issue, if someone takes it where they are off for the summer, then yes, their role is filled by a temporary person, which costs money - but this is offset by the fact that the person on leave isn't being paid. So I don't see your point on that one.

Its easy to generalise that office based civil servants have a cushy number. Some do, some don't. Try having the head eaten off you by a member of the public in a dole office and you'll change your mind about some of them at least.

I'm not attempting to tell you that you are completely wrong about everything, but you're pigeonholing thousands of people and their jobs unfairly. There has been a lot of utter ****e spewed about the wider public service in general in the past few years in an attempt to divide and conquer (it seems to have worked very well), but this kind of thing isn't particularly helpful.

I understand your points but numerous reports have come out in the past that categorically state that those in the public sector take more sick leave than those in the private sector. Every single time the research is done the answer is the same so I fundamentally disagree with you on that one.

Anyone who works with the public has had the head eaten off them numerous times a week, what's unusual about that? That's part of the job. Try working in a restaurant or bar where abusive people are also drunk and unpredictable and there isn't a security guard with 10 feet of you.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

pilly wrote: »

Anyone who works with the public has had the head eaten off them numerous times a week, what's unusual about that? That's part of the job. Try working in a restaurant or bar where abusive people are also drunk and unpredictable and there isn't a security guard with 10 feet of you.

I don't doubt it, I've worked in the hospitality industry myself and it can be a right pain. But, equally, does getting the head eaten off of you by members of the public equate to a cushy number? I wouldn't think so.

Just to add, many public offices don't have security guards and of the ones that do, many of them wouldn't be overly interested in getting involved when it kicks off. That's just my own personal experience.

I take your point about the sick leave to a degree, but you're taking a statistic and using it to make misrepresentations about a whole sector of the workforce to suit your own agenda, which isn't right either.

pilly

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

I don't doubt it, I've worked in the hospitality industry myself and it can be a right pain. But, equally, does getting the head eaten off of you by members of the public equate to a cushy number? I wouldn't think so.

Just to add, many public offices don't have security guards and of the ones that do, many of them wouldn't be overly interested in getting involved when it kicks off. That's just my own personal experience.

I take your point about the sick leave to a degree, but you're taking a statistic and using it to make misrepresentations about a whole sector of the workforce to suit your own agenda, which isn't right either.

Sorry Kenneth but how is it a misrepresentation? It's a statistical fact?

hytrogen

pilly wrote:

Sorry Kenneth but how is it a misrepresentation? It's a statistical fact?

Seriously? You want to talk analytically in AH??!

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

pilly wrote: »

Sorry Kenneth but how is it a misrepresentation? It's a statistical fact?

So statistics say that, on average, civil servants take more sick leave than private sector workers. In reality, it is probably 15 - 20% of CS workers taking a lot of sick leave that is dragging the average up, I think that that is probably a fair assumption.

My point is, it is disingenuous to use those stats to make out that ALL of the workers are taking huge amounts of sick leave, while the 80% aren't really.

jh79

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

So statistics say that, on average, civil servants take more sick leave than private sector workers. In reality, it is probably 15 - 20% of CS workers taking a lot of sick leave that is dragging the average up, I think that that is probably a fair assumption.

My point is, it is disingenuous to use those stats to make out that ALL of the workers are taking huge amounts of sick leave, while the 80% aren't really.

From a google search there is a fair gap , nearly twice the figure.

Most civil servant see them as holidays. Managers encourage their use as holidays.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

jh79 wrote: »

Managers encourage their use as holidays.

I'm not actually sure if you mean that as a serious comment. That's absolutely preposterous.

Ok, well if we're just going to start making things up, that ends my interest in contributing towards this discussion.

jh79

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

I'm not actually sure if you mean that as a serious comment. That's absolutely preposterous.

Ok, well if we're just going to start making things up, that ends my interest in contributing towards this discussion.

Something is causing civil servants to be out sick twice as often as private sector workers and that's what i was told by one civil servant family member.

The same department closed early for xmas eventhough this is not supposed to happen any more. Managers swiped them in or they came in just to clock in. Something like that.

I worked with a guy who was always out sick with back pain but he suddenly recovered once the new 3 months full / half pay rules came in.

Sebastian Dangerfield

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

That's absolutely preposterous.

Ok, well if we're just going to start making things up, that ends my interest in contributing towards this discussion.

Maybe things have changed, but when I was in the Department of ETE 10 years ago, this was common. Towards the end of the year there would be lots of talk of using up allocated sick leave as holidays, it was absolutely accepted as normal.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

Maybe things have changed, but when I was in the Department of ETE 10 years ago, this was common. Towards the end of the year there would be lots of talk of using up allocated sick leave as holidays, it was absolutely accepted as normal.

In those 10 years, the civil service has changed dramatically from what it once was. The spotlight has been on the CS since the recession hit with the FEMPI legislation kicking in.

Sure, there were many normal workers who did view sick leave as a holiday entitlement and I'm sure that culture still exists to a degree.

I find it difficult to believe that promoting the use of sick leave for holidays for their staff existed in managerial circles.

But let's say it did.

Let me assure you, any manager seen to be promoting the use of Sick Leave for holidays would be in serious, serious trouble. That kind of thing doesn't fly now, even if it did in the past.

jh79 wrote: »

The same department closed early for xmas eventhough this is not supposed to happen any more. Managers swiped them in or they came in just to clock in. Something like that.

Some departments would give their staff a day off on Christmas Eve (subject to the business needs of that Department) provided they come in and clock in, some public offices might close early on that day. But the offices don't actually close for any period around Christmas, only on the Public Holidays.

jh79

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

In those 10 years, the civil service has changed dramatically from what it once was. The spotlight has been on the CS since the recession hit with the FEMPI legislation kicking in.

Sure, there were many normal workers who did view sick leave as a holiday entitlement and I'm sure that culture still exists to a degree.

I find it difficult to believe that promoting the use of sick leave for holidays for their staff existed in managerial circles.

But let's say it did.

Let me assure you, any manager seen to be promoting the use of Sick Leave for holidays would be in serious, serious trouble. That kind of thing doesn't fly now, even if it did in the past.



Some departments would give their staff a day off on Christmas Eve (subject to the business needs of that Department) provided they come in and clock in, some public offices might close early on that day. But the offices don't actually close for any period around Christmas, only on the Public Holidays.

To be fair it must be happening still otherwise there wouldn't be twice the number of sick days.

etselbbuns

Turns out that Regina made no mistake.
She leaked the budget increase of €5pw for welfare recipients, two weeks in advance.

Stonedpilot

She cant live on it but half the people on this forum doing ok on it. Cest le vie!.

Benildus

Being on the dole is a great career choice; pay rises every year and no performance reviews.

Outlaw Pete

Just hearing there's a strict stipulation regarding that €5 increase that it can't all be spent in the one shop.

djPSB

jh79 wrote: »

From a google search there is a fair gap , nearly twice the figure.

Most civil servant see them as holidays. Managers encourage their use as holidays.

Maybe it's the stress from work that's making civil servants sick.

jh79

djPSB wrote: »

Maybe it's the stress from work that's making civil servants sick.

More stress than the private sector? Seriously ?

A job for life that is practically recession proof, increments and upward only bench marking, sick days as extra holidays, stress free fraudulent performance reviews. Flexi time, paid maternity leave , chance for further education, VHI , defined pension schemes, allowances etc.

djPSB

jh79 wrote: »

More stress than the private sector? Seriously ?

A job for life that is practically recession proof, increments and upward only bench marking, sick days as extra holidays, stress free fraudulent performance reviews. Flexi time, paid maternity leave , chance for further education, VHI , defined pension schemes, allowances etc.

Stress can also be associated with boredom, lack of job fulfillment etc.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

jh79 wrote: »

More stress than the private sector? Seriously ?

A job for life that is practically recession proof, increments and upward only bench marking, sick days as extra holidays, stress free fraudulent performance reviews. Flexi time, paid maternity leave , chance for further education, VHI , defined pension schemes, allowances etc.

Recession proof? My weekly wage mustn't have gone down €80 after all then!

Benchmarking is long gone.

VHI? Nope.

minikin

How much of that €80 reduction was in the form of a meagre contribution to your gold plated rolls royce pension?

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

minikin wrote: »

How much of that €80 reduction was in the form of a meagre contribution to your gold plated rolls royce pension?

None of it. I already paid towards my own pension, as did every civil servant who started after 1995. The €80 went mainly in the form of the pension levy, which doesn't really count, as that just went straight to the exchequer, not into the pensions fund. Also the USC, which we all got hit with in fairness.

As for the gold-plated rolls royce pension, you try to buy a rolls royce with ten grand!

jh79

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

Recession proof? My weekly wage mustn't have gone down €80 after all then!

Benchmarking is long gone.

VHI? Nope.

80 euro ! During the greatest recession we are likely to see. Hardly the end of the world.

Can you not see how fortunate ye are in comparison to the rest of us?

minikin

try to buy one with no pension... welcome to the real world

jh79

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

None of it. I already paid towards my own pension, as did every civil servant who started after 1995. The €80 went mainly in the form of the pension levy, which doesn't really count, as that just went straight to the exchequer, not into the pensions fund. Also the USC, which we all got hit with in fairness.

As for the gold-plated rolls royce pension, you try to buy a rolls royce with ten grand!

So you would have no problem with losing the defined pension in the future?

JaCrispy

jh79 wrote: »

From a google search there is a fair gap , nearly twice the figure.

Most civil servant see them as holidays. Managers encourage their use as holidays.

Dotarded post. Why would managers encourage their staff to take sick days?
Actually don't bother answering that question. You've already been bumped onto the "opinion doesn't matter" list.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

jh79 wrote: »

So you would have no problem with losing the defined pension in the future?

I'd have a problem with it, as I contribute to it, and have done for 10 years. Having said that, I think that by the time I retire, it'll be worth very little with the pensions time bomb that seems to be approaching.

jh79 wrote: »

80 euro ! During the greatest recession we are likely to see. Hardly the end of the world.

Can you not see how fortunate ye are in comparison to the rest of us?

It wasn't the end of the world at all, I'm very fortunate to have a secure job. I'm not professing to have it tough or making out that I'm underpaid or whingeing about everything, I merely called you out on a couple of things you said.

I lost money, which just means my job isn't completely recession proof.

I informed you that benchmarking was gone, which it is.

You implied that civil servants have free VHI. We don't.

That's it. I'm not requesting violins to be played, but when people start presenting inaccuracies as fact, surely I'm entitled to correct them, I don't think that's unfair.

jh79

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

It wasn't the end of the world at all, I'm very fortunate to have a secure job. I'm not professing to have it tough or making out that I'm underpaid or whingeing about everything, I merely called you out on a couple of things you said.

I lost money, which just means my job isn't completely recession proof.

I informed you that benchmarking was gone, which it is.

You implied that civil servants have free VHI. We don't.

That's it. I'm not requesting violins to be played, but when people start presenting inaccuracies as fact, surely I'm entitled to correct them, I don't think that's unfair.

Fair enough, i did say "practically recession proof" and 80 euro is a minor cut in comparison to what was experienced in the private sector.

While bemchmarking is now over it inflated wages to ridiculuous levels that we still really can't afford and pensions are a ticking time bomb.

The unions have us over a barrell and todays budget is further confirmation of that.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

jh79 wrote: »

Fair enough, i did say "practically recession proof" and 80 euro is a minor cut in comparison to what was experienced in the private sector.

Sorry, I missed the "practically" part. 80 euro is a minor cut in comparison to people who lost their jobs, but not everyone's wages were cut by 20% in the private sector.

jh79 wrote: »

The unions have us over a barrell and todays budget is further confirmation of that.

Really? How? That's a genuine question as I haven't had a chance to look at the Budget yet.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

More stress than the private sector? Seriously ?

A job for life that is practically recession proof, increments and upward only bench marking, sick days as extra holidays, stress free fraudulent performance reviews. Flexi time, paid maternity leave , chance for further education, VHI , defined pension schemes, allowances etc.

Yeah tis a personal tragedy you didn't get the points for it yerself huh

dusty207

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

but not everyone's wages were cut by 20% in the private sector.

You're right, mine went altogether.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah tis a personal tragedy you didn't get the points for it yerself huh

The points for what?

pjohnson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah tis a personal tragedy you didn't get the points for it yerself huh

With that grammar you want to bring points into it?

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Fair enough, i did say "practically recession proof" and 80 euro is a minor cut in comparison to what was experienced in the private sector.

Out of my five or six closest friends, two of us are civil servants. Every one of the others saw significant pay rises throughout recession and none was out of work at any stage. They've all got good employer-matched pensions.

Anyone who makes a comment on what happened to 'the private sector' as if it were some sort of uniform entity is as disregardable as .....well, anyone who behaves the same way towards the public sector, I suppose.

Worthless cant.

jh79

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

Sorry, I missed the "practically" part. 80 euro is a minor cut in comparison to people who lost their jobs, but not everyone's wages were cut by 20% in the private sector.



Really? How? That's a genuine question as I haven't had a chance to look at the Budget yet.

Practically all available money went on pay increases for public servants.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

The points for what?

Public service. Fiercely competitive course dontcha know. But worth it for all those unassailable perks.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Practically all available money went on pay increases for public servants.

Restoration is the word you're seeking. Practically isn't.

And the government got a pretty good deal at that.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Public service. Fiercely competitive course dontcha know. But worth it for all those unassailable perks.

I would of found an arts degree to be boring to be honest. Decided on a PhD in Organic Chemistry instead.