Got Called To Go On Jobpath

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If a parent of any description shows up at ST or TN with a child in tow, they are promptly and quite forcefully told to gtfo due to insurance reasons. Doesn't matter what their business is there, they won't let you past the reception with a child in the building. Says it all about them really. A single parent of a young child would not get near them to explain their situation and be referred to the correct payment if they had no one to mind the child to get to an "advisor" in the first place.

I never suggested that a parent showed up with a child in tow. I certainly would hope that someone with a child in tow would be turned away.
Some parents who should be on lone parent are actually on JSA because that's what they were on before the baby was born. That's my point. They're on the wrong scheme.

splinter65

Wanderer78 wrote: »

if a person is unemployed due to child careering needs, and is requested to attend a meeting, what should they do with the kids if no other careering options are available?

If you have at least one of your kids under 7 and you are parenting alone then you are entitled to OPFP

splinter65

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so what should they be claiming?

Opfp

Wanderer78

splinter65 wrote: »

If you have at least one of your kids under 7 and you are parenting alone then you are entitled to OPFP

what if you dont, and/or are not?

splinter65

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what if you dont, and/or are not?

Well if your not parenting alone then the other parent should be able to mind the children while you attend your TN/Seetec meeting.
If the other parent is working and on such low wages that you qualify for JSA then you should give up your JSA and the other parent apply for WFP and BTWFD instead.

redarmy

https://jobpathmyexperienceoftheemploymentandskillsprogram.wordpress.com/ Great Read.

Wanderer78

splinter65 wrote: »

Well if your not parenting alone then the other parent should be able to mind the children while you attend your TN/Seetec meeting.
If the other parent is working and on such low wages that you qualify for JSA then you should give up your JSA and the other parent apply for WFP and BTWFD instead.

what if the other parent is working and cannot take time off work to accommodate the meeting?

if jsa is given up, what is the likelihood of receiving reductions in income?

splinter65

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what if the other parent is working and cannot take time off work to accommodate the meeting?

if jsa is given up, what is the likelihood of receiving reductions in income?

I’ve covered that in my reply to you wanderer.
If one parent is working then he/she must be on low enough income if the other is getting JSA.
The JSA parent should give up their claim and get BTWFD and the working parent claim WFP instead.
That way the at home parent is no longer tied to the conditions for JSA.

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It's a workplace, it's not a creche!
If you had a job somewhere would you and your co-workers be allowed bring your kids in tow?

Don't think I was suggesting Seetec workers be allowed take their kids to work? Nor was i suggesting people should be allowed have the kids along while doing job search and reviews there. They are offices accessible to the public though.

What I have witnessed is people point blank being refused to be spoken to by reception if they so much as wheel a buggy in the door, and told their insurance doesn't cover kids in the building which means they are cheaping on it . Could you imagine that in an Intreo office or car tax or hse clinic, sorry no you can't come in with a buggie and explain your situation at reception or get information that you are in fact on the wrong payment and then get reported for non compliance and cut off just so you can square the circle with the DSP?

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don't think I was suggesting Seetec workers be allowed take their kids to work? Nor was i suggesting people should be allowed have the kids along while doing job search and reviews there. They are offices accessible to the public though.

What I have witnessed is people point blank being refused to be spoken to by reception if they so much as wheel a buggy in the door, and told their insurance doesn't cover kids in the building which means they are cheaping on it . Could you imagine that in an Intreo office or car tax or hse clinic, sorry no you can't come in with a buggie and explain your situation at reception or get information that you are in fact on the wrong payment and then get reported for non compliance and cut off just so you can square the circle with the DSP?

Why not leave the child with the minder or crèche you have lined up for when you start work?

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

Well if you bring a child in a buggy to a one to one meeting with a facilitator, who do you think was going to mind the child while you had the meeting?
When you got the letter asking you to attend there was a phone number on it to contact them, why not ring it and ask if it’s ok to bring kids?

Not talking about a one on one, you can't make it that far without passing reception, who point blank tell people no kids in the building and refuse to hear another word said regardless of your reason for being there. Be it the original summons or deferring an appointment as it clashes with a job interview etc.

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not talking about a one on one, you can't make it that far without passing reception, who point blank tell people no kids in the building and refuse to hear another word said regardless of your reason for being there. Be it the original summons or deferring an appointment as it clashes with a job interview etc.

I don’t see what problem you have with people being told at reception that children are not permitted in the building.
If the leaseholders public liability insurance doesn’t allow for children then that’s pretty much the end of it.
They can’t cone in.
If you are engaging in the job activation process attached to Jobseekers payments as you are required to be as part of the conditions of being eligible for that payment then Turas Nua would be entitled to assume that you have childcare arrangements in place in order to be ready to start work at short notice.
Jobseekers is for adults who are free to go to appointments interviews etc and start work without having to bring their children with them.

Seth Brundle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don't think I was suggesting Seetec workers be allowed take their kids to work? Nor was i suggesting people should be allowed have the kids along while doing job search and reviews there. They are offices accessible to the public though.

What I have witnessed is people point blank being refused to be spoken to by reception if they so much as wheel a buggy in the door, and told their insurance doesn't cover kids in the building which means they are cheaping on it . Could you imagine that in an Intreo office or car tax or hse clinic, sorry no you can't come in with a buggie and explain your situation at reception or get information that you are in fact on the wrong payment and then get reported for non compliance and cut off just so you can square the circle with the DSP?

I'm quite aware of the point. My point was that kids should not be there. Find someone to mind them while you're in there. Whoever tried to bring kids in was being irresponsible either towards an important meeting or to their kids - which is it?
Who will mind their kids when they find work or do they not want work?

power pants

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm quite aware of the point. My point was that kids should not be there. Find someone to mind them while you're in there. Whoever tried to bring kids in was being irresponsible either towards an important meeting or to their kids - which is it?
Who will mind their kids when they find work or do they not want work?

They do not want to work. So many lazy hide behind kids as an excuse. To top it off they are not even good parents either, too busy slothing around on the couch or making their life all about them and not their kids.

Wanderer78

power pants wrote:

They do not want to work. So many lazy hide behind kids as an excuse. To top it off they are not even good parents either, too busy slothing around on the couch or making their life all about them and not their kids.

You should probably do a bit of research into the root causes of long term unemployment, I'd class your comment as 'lazy research'!

power pants

Wanderer78 wrote: »

You should probably do a bit of research into the root causes of long term unemployment, I'd class your comment as 'lazy research'!

incorrect. I assure you, I know what I am talking about

Wanderer78

power pants wrote:

incorrect. I assure you, I know what I am talking about

Are you an expert such as a clinical psychologist or an educational psychologist etc?

power pants

power pants wrote: »

incorrect. I assure you, I know what I am talking about

What is your point in the context of this thread? The ones you speak of are quite adept at dodging Jobpath as they are jobs and wouldn't have to endure more than one appointment with them if that, while the rest of us would have to play ball.

I should clarify here about my experience with them and the whole thing about kids in their offices. I had to miss one appointment with them for an interview. Tried calling the office she was busy. Email - didn't respond but quick enough mail to tell me my appointment times via email. Was passing and decided I'd pop in and let them know I wouldn't be there on the next jobsearch day as I'd an interview. Receptionist told me no I can't come in with the buggy and point blank refused to speak to me and I could even make eye contact with my "employment advisor". I should have known better having seen the same thing happen to others while I was attending for jobsearch. So had to go home and try and call and email again, still got cut off for non engagement despite the paper trial and me attending appointments after the one I missed for an interview.

misstearheus

I've a random question! Who are the Seetec Advisors?!? Like who exactly are they?!? Where did they come from? Are they actually qualified H.R. people? What would the requirements / criteria have been for an Advisor to get their job?

engiweirdo

misstearheus wrote: »

I've a random question! Who are the Seetec Advisors?!? Like who exactly are they?!? Where did they come from? Are they actually qualified H.R. people? What would the requirements / criteria have been for an Advisor to get their job?

Randoms usually. Prob thought they were getting into sales.

Plugguy

misstearheus wrote: »

I've a random question! Who are the Seetec Advisors?!? Like who exactly are they?!? Where did they come from? Are they actually qualified H.R. people? What would the requirements / criteria have been for an Advisor to get their job?

Have a read here...https://jobpathmyexperienceoftheemploymentandskillsprogram.wordpress.com/2017/07/23/employment-advisor-professional/

Seth Brundle

misstearheus wrote: »

I've a random question! Who are the Seetec Advisors?!? Like who exactly are they?!? Where did they come from? Are they actually qualified H.R. people? What would the requirements / criteria have been for an Advisor to get their job?

You forgot to ask where they live? :rolleyes:

Why does it matter as long as you get a job?

splinter65

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You forgot to ask where they live? :rolleyes:

Why does it matter as long as you get a job?

Poster might be thinking of going for after a position with Seetec?

dhaughton99

misstearheus wrote: »

I've a random question! Who are the Seetec Advisors?!? Like who exactly are they?!? Where did they come from? Are they actually qualified H.R. people? What would the requirements / criteria have been for an Advisor to get their job?

They used to be door to door sales for Pre-Pay Power and Vodafone Broadband but settle indoors for the winter months.

Straight Talker

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You forgot to ask where they live? :rolleyes:

Why does it matter as long as you get a job?

The manager at my seetec centre (i looked him up on linkedin) only previous experience prior to seetec, was working in the hospitality sector.His last job was a hotel manager.My pa has barely left college i'd say.And the fella who was giving a talk this morning, was honest enough to admit that his previous work experience was as a plasterer, and office worker with the county council.So as you can see, a lot of staff there don't have much experience with regards to training and teaching people, and dealing with the unemployed etc.The blind leading the blind so to speak.

emilymemily

Im wondering if anyone else here has had a similar experience to the one im having and what was the outcome?

Im a teacher, subbing full time up until Christmas. I cancelled my last appointment with Seetec, told my employment adviser I was working full time subbing. She responded.
Im now getting threatening letters from Seetec, The letter stated I had not attended the previous meeting and didnt inform my employment adviser that I would not be attending. They gave me an appointment for another meeting this week and said that my payments will be cut or stopped completely if I dont show up. My SW has been suspended for the last 2 months while ive been employed.
I tried ringing seetec but couldnt get through to anyone, ive emailed my employment adviser but she hasnt replied.
I will most likely need to sign on again once my sub position ends in 2 weeks but im concerned that seetec will create problems and say I havnt engaged with them or that I skipped meetings.

Any help appreciated.

engiweirdo

emilymemily wrote: »

Im wondering if anyone else here has had a similar experience to the one im having and what was the outcome?

Im a teacher, subbing full time up until Christmas. I cancelled my last appointment with Seetec, told my employment adviser I was working full time subbing. She responded.
Im now getting threatening letters from Seetec, The letter stated I had not attended the previous meeting and didnt inform my employment adviser that I would not be attending. They gave me an appointment for another meeting this week and said that my payments will be cut or stopped completely if I dont show up. My SW has been suspended for the last 2 months while ive been employed.
I tried ringing seetec but couldnt get through to anyone, ive emailed my employment adviser but she hasnt replied.
I will most likely need to sign on again once my sub position ends in 2 weeks but im concerned that seetec will create problems and say I havnt engaged with them or that I skipped meetings.

Any help appreciated.

Can't get commission from you is all is up with them. Not a hope of them finding a professional job for anybody, but that won't stop them trying to claim it was their work and looking a fee for it.

Contact /Deal with SW Officer directly about the situation, don't waste your time explaining to Seetec. I had a meeting with an officer in SW and he was sound out, gave me contact details for him as he knew TN/Seetec would ignore any requests for training courses outside of dopey manual handling type "certifications". And to let him know if they start acting the maggot. The difference between dealing with a proper qualified civil servant and whatever the other crowd are.

Don't get me wrong, they're just following orders/ going by their script but that doesn't protect yourself.

CramCycle

prinzeugen wrote: »

You don't "sign" the PPP though. Not in my case anyway. You use the computer mouse and what is on the screen is nothing like my real signature.

It looks like a 4 year old did it on MS paint!

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that you made, so it is your signiture

Giggle, my signature on a electronic notepad looks nothing like my paper one but it is still my signature.

splinter65 wrote: »

Why not leave the child with the minder or cre you have lined up for when you start work?

An off the cuff childminder if unemployed could set you back your food money for the week. Having one lined up and having one who can take your kid like a babysitter at sort notice are different things, most creches in urban regions are near breaking point with numbers, they certainly won't accept someone on a waiting list policy or for random one off days while you maybe get lucky with an interview.

For a proper interview, you take the hit, it is a gamble that may pay off. For something like this, you have to be ****ting me if you think its unreasonable to bring your kid along with you, they have to know their client base will require this for many people.

TheRealPONeill

Grasshooper not to understand a man’s purpose does not make him confused - it makes him understand he does not need to understand such things and just to understand to sign the agreement that is the understanding that allows Seetec to also understand - and collect their fee is their ultimate understanding.

splinter65

CramCycle wrote: »

Giggle, my signature on a electronic notepad looks nothing like my paper one but it is still my signature.

An off the cuff childminder if unemployed could set you back your food money for the week. Having one lined up and having one who can take your kid like a babysitter at sort notice are different things, most creches in urban regions are near breaking point with numbers, they certainly won't accept someone on a waiting list policy or for random one off days while you maybe get lucky with an interview.

For a proper interview, you take the hit, it is a gamble that may pay off. For something like this, you have to be ****ting me if you think its unreasonable to bring your kid along with you, they have to know their client base will require this for many people.

So you think that Seetec/TN should provide crèche facilities? That’s interesting. If you insist on being on Jobseekers when there are at least 2 other payments more suitable you could be on instead then you should just pay for your own babysitter.

CramCycle

splinter65 wrote: »

So you think that Seetec/TN should provide cre facilities? That’s interesting. If you insist on being on Jobseekers when there are at least 2 other payments more suitable you could be on instead then you should just pay for your own babysitter.

When did I say that? It's not a real job interview. JS does not give enough money to cover child care for much time. Why could they not bring their child with them and leave them sitting there during the process. It is something that should have been considered during the developing of the process, like a drop in cre in a shopping centre which would be far cheaper than a cre. Nonetheless, such restrictions mean that for alot of parents, getting into the workforce would be very risky/difficult. Basically you risk causing a poverty trap with such ridiculous restrictions.

Fair enough for a job interview where there is a chance you get the job, you take that risk, for something that may achieve nothing and all indications are it is no more use than normal job hunting for many, why would you pay over what could be your family's food shopping for half the week?

splinter65

First of all children do not “sit” anywhere while you deal with business. That is not in the nature of children nor should it be.
Secondly other people are attending Seetec and TN with a view to finding a career path and expect to do that in an adult environment.
If you have children in buggy’s and have no choice but to bring them then there are a choice of other payments that you and your family should be applying for that would be more beneficial. I’ve set out the reasoning behind this further back in this thread.

redbuck

Had a few negative experiences with Seetec. After signing up they wouldn't let me apply for jobs that weren't through them.

I wanted to apply for the BTWEA and they wouldn't let me do so.

My personal advisor was clearly out of her depth, she couldn't even type a full sentence. It took her 30 seconds to type my name. She told me just put whatever you want on your CV. She sent me forward for a job in a popcorn factory and told me to put down on my CV that I had worked in another popcorn factory for 2 years. She told me I should be doing cash in hand work on the side.

Very, very unprofessional to deal with. And inn the end I was delighted to get away from them when I decided to emigrate.

Wanderer78

redbuck wrote:

Very, very unprofessional to deal with. And inn the end I was delighted to get away from them when I decided to emigrate.

To be fair, at least they tried to create a career path for you

redbuck

Wanderer78 wrote: »

To be fair, at least they tried to create a career path for you

Nah they didn't, I went back to construction which I was doing before the recession after having retrained in ICT during the dark years prior to being called up to Jobpath.

Sadly the popcorn factory dream was never realised

Samsgirl

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It's a workplace, it's not a creche!
If you had a job somewhere would you and your co-workers be allowed bring your kids in tow?

If you had a job somewhere you could afford childcare

Wanderer78

Samsgirl wrote: »

If you had a job somewhere you 'might be able to' afford childcare

fyp;)

misstearheus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You forgot to ask where they live? :rolleyes:

Why does it matter as long as you get a job?

Besides sometimes forgetting, I don't usually come back to posts. But your no-reason Eye-roll made me do it. Your sarcasm indicates I was asking multiple un-reasonable questions, if you read my post again, all's I was asking was about qualification or how they're recruited. And I think people are allowed to ask questions here.

Again it was just a random question of interest is all. They do help people get jobs. I wasn't examining or questioning their work or anything.

*subscribes to Thread*


/ibtl

Seth Brundle

misstearheus wrote: »

Besides sometimes forgetting, I don't usually come back to posts. But your no-reason Eye-roll made me do it. Your sarcasm indicates I was asking multiple un-reasonable questions, if you read my post again, all's I was asking was about qualification or how they're recruited. And I think people are allowed to ask questions here.

Again it was just a random question of interest is all. They do help people get jobs. I wasn't examining or questioning their work or anything.

*subscribes to Thread*


/ibtl

In what other state agencies have you posted these questions online?

CramCycle

splinter65 wrote: »

First of all children do not “sit” anywhere while you deal with business. That is not in the nature of children nor should it be.
Secondly other people are attending Seetec and TN with a view to finding a career path and expect to do that in an adult environment.
If you have children in buggy’s and have no choice but to bring them then there are a choice of other payments that you and your family should be applying for that would be more beneficial. I’ve set out the reasoning behind this further back in this thread.

Well then maybe seetec should have been contracted to have a drop in creche on site as part of their tender but my kids would be fine with it. Admittedly, I'd probably pawn them off but I should be able to bring them.

It would be a small percentage of people this would be an issue for, considering school kicks in at 4 or 5, so you really are talking about accommodating families where only one parent is unemployed or it is a single parent family, where their kid or kids are between 0.5 and 5 years old, and for whom its more suitable to bring their child. I hardly imagine they are going to be inundated with kids.

For the questionnaire bit, they could hand them the questionnaire and ask them to come back in a day or two if it was unmanageable.

splinter65

CramCycle wrote: »

Well then maybe seetec should have been contracted to have a drop in creche on site as part of their tender but my kids would be fine with it. Admittedly, I'd probably pawn them off but I should be able to bring them.

It would be a small percentage of people this would be an issue for, considering school kicks in at 4 or 5, so you really are talking about accommodating families where only one parent is unemployed or it is a single parent family, where their kid or kids are between 0.5 and 5 years old, and for whom its more suitable to bring their child. I hardly imagine they are going to be inundated with kids.

For the questionnaire bit, they could hand them the questionnaire and ask them to come back in a day or two if it was unmanageable.

There’s no reason for a lone parent of a child under 7 to be on JSA, they should be on OPFP which excludes them from being subject to Jobseekers conditions.
There’s no reason for anyone who’s partner is in a low income job to be on JSA either. The working partner should be claiming WFP and BTWFD instead.
There’s no reason for the parents of children in buggy’s to be on Jobseekers and that’s why there’s no kids allowed at Seetec/TN offices.

CramCycle

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s no reason for a lone parent of a child under 7 to be on JSA, they should be on OPFP which excludes them from being subject to Jobseekers conditions.
There’s no reason for anyone who’s partner is in a low income job to be on JSA either. The working partner should be claiming WFP and BTWFD instead.
There’s no reason for the parents of children in buggy’s to be on Jobseekers and that’s why there’s no kids allowed at Seetec/TN offices.

All correct, and the next points are slightly tongue in cheek but not impossible.
Looking at the conditions for those, it is simply far easier to remain on Jobseekers than transfer over in many scenarios (from reading through the descriptions page).
Do you still get the access to training schemes through all of these payments, I can't figure it out, and people I have talked too tell me that not everyone at their office is as helpful as they could be.
These would be the two main reasons, which are very different, so there are reasons, they just might not be good or believable. The first I imagine is the most obvious one, the latter, I don't know enough about. Can you do courses like Springboard etc. through all of the above schemes, do all of these schemes provide enough to cover childcare as you go to training courses.
Whatever the reason, I really cannot see the reason why, in the very few cases it might occur, a person would object to them having a kid with them. It certainly won't be everyone, typically they will be younger and maybe, just maybe, they could just be human and accept that the person is trying and maybe JSA is the most suitable option as far as this person is aware. They are trying to get back out there working and this appears to be the most viable option.

fryup

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s no reason for a lone parent of a child under 7 to be on JSA, they should be on OPFP which excludes them from being subject to Jobseekers conditions.
There’s no reason for anyone who’s partner is in a low income job to be on JSA either. The working partner should be claiming WFP and BTWFD instead.
There’s no reason for the parents of children in buggy’s to be on Jobseekers and that’s why there’s no kids allowed at Seetec/TN offices.

Straight Question: splinter65 > do you work for the dept of social welfare?? now or in the past?

thereality

OP I seen a post of yours from 5 years 5 months ago saying that you were on welfare. Considering you have been on welfare for 7 years, I find it disturbing that someone can be on it so long without it being cut.

So what is Seetac is a for profit company. What is a worser evil to society a company making a profit as they are intended to do or someone sitting on their hole thinking should not a job, as a for profit company thinks they should get one?

Enlighten me on what efforts you have made to get a job in the last seven years? From your comments, you come across as quite intelligent. You seem very capable at advising others on how to bleed the state dry...

prinzeugen

The problem with Jobpath is its all about full-time employment.

Earn €20/hr in a part time job? Nope must get full time job earning €10/hour.

The thing that pisses me off is that they don't class part time work as employment.

I was working 3 part time jobs at one point. But as far as they are concerned I have been long term unemployed since 2009 as that was when I last had a 9-5, 40 hour/ week job.

I still work part time and am on this bloody thing. Yes it may be good for people that have done zero work in years, but to be told that bursting your balls trying to juggle 3 part time jobs "is not good enough" is fecking insulting.

Seth Brundle

Lion Killer wrote: »

Frankly, the dole office are going to be of no use to me in finding a job. I have a degree in a specific area and am focusing my applications on this area. I am just struggling to get in the door of a company. i don't think they can help me with anything. I will drag my heels as much as possible to avoid being put on some silly course that will benefit me in no way whatsoever.

How long have you been trying to get an interview with a company in your chosen area?
From what I'm reading you'd rather be unemployed in the off chance that you get an interview (never mind a job offer) in your chosen area rather than reskill yourself and get a job in another area.

Having been part of the recruitment process in my own workplaces I'd favour someone actively working (anywhere) rather than someone sitting at home waiting for a job interview to land on their lap but good luck with your attempts.

Straight Talker

thereality wrote: »

OP I seen a post of yours from 5 years 5 months ago saying that you were on welfare. Considering you have been on welfare for 7 years, I find it disturbing that someone can be on it so long without it being cut.

So what is Seetac is a for profit company. What is a worser evil to society a company making a profit as they are intended to do or someone sitting on their hole thinking should not a job, as a for profit company thinks they should get one?

Enlighten me on what efforts you have made to get a job in the last seven years? From your comments, you come across as quite intelligent. You seem very capable at advising others on how to bleed the state dry...

I have done courses and worked on and off.Not that it's any of your business.I haven't been unemployed for 7 years either.I look for work, and i show my efforts to look for work.I do everything that's asked of me.I have nothing to hide, and no case to answer to anyone.What have you done with your life, that entitles you to moralize and pontificate to others?The payment is called jobseekers allowance, and that is what it is for.People looking for a job.

thereality

Straight Talker wrote: »

Not that it's any of your business.

You see the thing is there is no such thing as the tooth fairy or Santa, that welfare you receive every Thursday does not come out of thin air. It is paid for with the taxes, I and others pay from working. I would be absolutely be disgusted if someone was on the scratcher for seven years without some meaningful effort to get a job. I would be quite alarmed that there is not someone breathing down the neck of someone on welfare with such a strong economy and someone being on it for seven years

Straight Talker wrote: »

I haven't been unemployed for 7 years either.I look for work, and i show my efforts to look for work.I do everything that's asked of me.

Why don't you have a job then? We are near employment. There are tons of jobs out there

Straight Talker wrote: »

I have nothing to hide, and no case to answer to anyone.

Looking at your post history, I am sure you are ticking all the right boxes... Showing your effort...

Straight Talker wrote: »

What have you done with your life, that entitles you to moralize and pontificate to others?

Never been on welfare.

I don't have a problem with it. I agree with the idea of a welfare state. I think it is amazing that we can all have a high standard of living. I just think there is a small minority in this country, that are abusing it. 10/15 years ago, it was frowned upon. Now if you don't have the red carpet rolled out, you are now the victim

Straight Talker wrote: »

The payment is called jobseekers allowance, and that is what it is for.People looking for a job.

There is a difference between looking for a job and looking for a job.

I think it should be for people looking for a job. I don't know if you are really looking for one...

Straight Talker

thereality wrote: »

You see the thing is there is no such thing as the tooth fairy or Santa, that welfare you receive every Thursday does not come out of thin air. It is paid for with the taxes, I and others pay from working. I would be absolutely be disgusted if someone was on the scratcher for seven years without some meaningful effort to get a job. I would be quite alarmed that there is not someone breathing down the neck of someone on welfare with such a strong economy and someone being on it for seven years



Why don't you have a job then? We are near employment. There are tons of jobs out there



Looking at your post history, I am sure you are ticking all the right boxes... Showing your effort...



Never been on welfare.

I don't have a problem with it. I agree with the idea of a welfare state. I think it is amazing that we can all have a high standard of living. I just think there is a small minority in this country, that are abusing it. 10/15 years ago, it was frowned upon. Now if you don't have the red carpet rolled out, you are now the victim



There is a difference between looking for a job and looking for a job.

I think it should be for people looking for a job. I don't know if you are really looking for one...

I have not been on welfare for 7 years.I made no post from 5 years ago, referring to being on welfare either.I also find, your sweeping generalizations, about the unemployed to be insulting.When you send out CV'S and you don't get a reply etc.Mental health issues are also a barrier, to gaining employment.So unless you are gaining revenue, by illegal means on the side, then no one wants to be on welfare.I have a feeling that you are, an employee of Seetec/Turas Nua.You are aware that there has been a highlighted case, of someone who attempted to commit suicide, due to being bullied intimidated and abused, by Seetec/Turas Nua staff?People like you and your attitude, give some of the bullies in Seetec/Turas Nua an excuse, to get away with their behavior.

mp22

thereality wrote: »

OP I seen a post of yours from 5 years 5 months ago saying that you were on welfare. Considering you have been on welfare for 7 years, I find it disturbing that someone can be on it so long without it being cut.

So what is Seetac is a for profit company. What is a worser evil to society a company making a profit as they are intended to do or someone sitting on their hole thinking should not a job, as a for profit company thinks they should get one?

Enlighten me on what efforts you have made to get a job in the last seven years? From your comments, you come across as quite intelligent. You seem very capable at advising others on how to bleed the state dry...

Please quote the post ...thanks