People on the dole for years

LirW

I'm seriously interested though: if you have to sign on they'll often put you on Jobpath or a similar scheme, they call you in to see if you're looking for work and that might have an effect on your payments.
For long-term unemployed, would that be different? How are they keeping their payments up?

Not being smart or so, genuinely interested.

Plumbthedepths

nlrkjos wrote:

but his rent would be tied to his earnings and would take time to re-adjust back to what he is paying, Norwegian healthcare is pretty good so he reckoned medical card would at the very least be questioned, as NAV and HSE share information.

His rent would only be reviewed once in the year period. There is also a mechanism for a tenant to engage in a change of circumstance. As for NAV irrelevant he and his family would avail of the med card for 3 years on a return to work. It's only years work so no medical loss at all.

LirW

LirW wrote: »

I'm seriously interested though: if you have to sign on they'll often put you on Jobpath or a similar scheme, they call you in to see if you're looking for work and that might have an effect on your payments.
For long-term unemployed, would that be different? How are they keeping their payments up?

Not being smart or so, genuinely interested.

No. It is not different. But those schemes and payment conditions are fairly new, only introduced in the last few years.

Kolpe

Theodore Helpful RoughneckMGS wrote: »

No. It is not different. But those schemes and payment conditions are fairly new, only introduced in the last few years.

Your posts are very educated of the Mickey scheme.

Kolpe

Kolpe wrote: »

Your posts are very educated of the Mickey scheme.

And?

ANDREWMUFC

Cut the dole off if she has more than 3 childer

Kirby

There does need to be a cap or cut-off regarding children's payments.

If you aren't working and haven't worked for some time and yet still decide its a good idea to have a fourth child.....you have to be responsible for that decision.

bunderoon

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

The answer to the above is to ask the people you know below.






That's it glad to have helped you OP.:P

Pretty straight forward.
a) The system isnt working as it should. (Under resourced & not fit for purpose)
b) The people on the dole for >4years survive on it. They have no plans for the future. They live and think week to week.

I know a few people who havent worked a lot longer than 4 years. They are in a rut. I was on the dole for ~9 months, back about 15 years ago. I know first hand how you can fall into a bad routine.
For some that are living at home, ~190 euro a week is more than enough as they have no bills, bar giving a few euro to their parents for upkeep.

Depression or a situation very close to depression isnt dealt with alongside social welfare. And I believe that thousands of those in ruts are battling more than just not getting the job/education that they are capable of.

DEFTLEFTHAND

nlrkjos wrote: »

I recently offered a guy a job offshore Norway, a 2 week on 3 week off rotation, the 5 week shift after tax would put approx €5500 in his pocket... his first question to me was "could I sign on for the 3 weeks off !" this guy was a great welder and worked hard as long as i know him, but after 2 years on the dole he just could not accept going out to work when there was "free money+extras" on offer at home, after listening to his reasons, I wouldn't blame him...he'd lose medical card, rent supplement, and a few other benefits for the sake of a two years work, he reckoned it would take him years to get back to his current standard of living..he don't drink or smoke, married with two rugrats and in a council house. It makes ya wonder, are we fecken eejits to work (self esteem aside)!!!!!!

But surely if he goes well for the two yrs he'll get another offshore contract.

The lack of drive and ambition is so sad. How does he ever expect to get out of his rut if doesn't push himself and take a chance on a great opportunity.


To set an example to the two kids if nobody else.


There really is no helping some people.

ShaneC93

I've said it a few times on here that I strongly believe we should implement a similar solution to that a couple of EU countries already use.

Drop the weekly welfare payment from the end of the 1st year, on a yearly-basis so that by the Xth straight year of welfare income a person is making 50-70% of what they'd make on year 1 (in the Netherlands for example. it's 65% by the 5th year). Of course there would need to be some exclusions; disabled people, pensioners / too old to work etc. but implement it for those that are fit to work yet unemployed.

Under a system like this they could even make it that for the first 3-6 months of unemployment, the payment is higher that it is now to help those who are legitimately between jobs and the savings on welfare spending / gains from people back in employment would mean the state could pay more to those on pensions who've worked their whole lives, have a disability etc. as well as paying more to the public service employees that deserve it; Nurses, Gardai, Army etc.

ceadaoin.

Kirby wrote: »

There does need to be a cap or cut-off regarding children's payments.

If you aren't working and haven't worked for some time and yet still decide its a good idea to have a fourth child.....you have to be responsible for that decision.

These "children's payments" don't actually fully or even mostly cover the cost of raising children you know. Unless you mean cut off all payments and plunge the entire family into even worse poverty. Yeah that sounds workable. Great solution

Mrs OBumble

LirW wrote: »

I'm seriously interested though: if you have to sign on they'll often put you on Jobpath or a similar scheme, they call you in to see if you're looking for work and that might have an effect on your payments.
For long-term unemployed, would that be different? How are they keeping their payments up?

Not being smart or so, genuinely interested.

Imagine you are a job-path caseworker, and you have Johnny Lifer in front of you.

He doesn't have much of a criminal record (only one burglary and few car conversions when he was young, nothing for the last 5 years). He's never held a paying job, and neither has anyone else in the family except his older sister and he say's she's a stuck up bitch who never even visits the mammy any more since she got the flash job up in some office in Mallow. Johnny left school after junior cert, his marks in that show that he can read but maybe not very much. You've been told that Intreo referred him to a couple of CE schemes, but they wouldn't take him 'cos of the burglery: the schemes have people working with vulnerable people and a dishonest conviction is just too risky. The only interest that you can get Johnny to talk about is boxing ... and there aren't too many paying jobs which require boxing skills. In fact a couple of employers in town have explicitly told you not to waste their time by sending Johnny to them, they think his attitude is as bad as his BO, and they don't like the family because of what Cousin ConJob did a few years ago.

Now - what exactly are you going to say to Johnny? He turns up and does what you say, but you know no one will even interview him much less employee him.

bunderoon

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Imagine you are a job-path caseworker, and you have Johnny Lifer in front of you.

He doesn't have much of a criminal record (only one burglary and few car conversions when he was young, nothing for the last 5 years). He's never held a paying job, and neither has anyone else in the family except his older sister and he say's she's a stuck up bitch who never even visits the mammy any more since she got the flash job up in some office in Mallow. Johnny left school after junior cert, his marks in that show that he can read but maybe not very much. You've been told that Intreo referred him to a couple of CE schemes, but they wouldn't take him 'cos of the burglery: the schemes have people working with vulnerable people and a dishonest conviction is just too risky. The only interest that you can get Johnny to talk about is boxing ... and there aren't too many paying jobs which require boxing skills. In fact a couple of employers in town have explicitly told you not to waste their time by sending Johnny to them, they think his attitude is as bad as his BO, and they don't like the family because of what Cousin ConJob did a few years ago.

Now - what exactly are you going to say to Johnny? He turns up and does what you say, but you know no one will even interview him much less employee him.

For those, you build into the social system a program where guidance and education/training (at various levels) is a must for the person to get a weekly dole payment. This would have to be strict, not nonsense like needing just 51% attendance for a training course to entitle you to full dole.

You need to change their mindset, gradually. The end result would take years, but thats because the state has allowed this crap to continue from one generation to another. It would actually take years to get to the outcome.

Jim Bob Scratcher

This forum should be renamed DOLE.IE

How Soon Is Now

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

This forum should be renamed DOLE.IE

I dunno why we can't just have one dole megathread instead of new thread every second day!!

How Soon Is Now

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I dunno why we can't just have one dole megathread instead of new thread every second day!!

Apropos of nothing in particular.

ShaneC93

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Imagine you are a job-path caseworker, and you have Johnny Lifer in front of you.

He doesn't have much of a criminal record (only one burglary and few car conversions when he was young, nothing for the last 5 years). He's never held a paying job, and neither has anyone else in the family except his older sister and he say's she's a stuck up bitch who never even visits the mammy any more since she got the flash job up in some office in Mallow. Johnny left school after junior cert, his marks in that show that he can read but maybe not very much. You've been told that Intreo referred him to a couple of CE schemes, but they wouldn't take him 'cos of the burglery: the schemes have people working with vulnerable people and a dishonest conviction is just too risky. The only interest that you can get Johnny to talk about is boxing ... and there aren't too many paying jobs which require boxing skills. In fact a couple of employers in town have explicitly told you not to waste their time by sending Johnny to them, they think his attitude is as bad as his BO, and they don't like the family because of what Cousin ConJob did a few years ago.

Now - what exactly are you going to say to Johnny? He turns up and does what you say, but you know no one will even interview him much less employee him.

Does an applicant with a conviction have to tell their employer they have one? Because many employers just wouldn't check. If it's a finance/legal/tech firm then sure, they'd probably check but a min. wage position or a manual labour position? Most wouldn't.

In that situation all the person needs is some experience & recent references, once they have that they won't struggle much finding a job if the theft was far in the past. They just to work hard, low-paying jobs until they get there in retail, support, construction / labour or remote / online working.

I'm surprised there has been little investment into giving access to online courses / training for scenarios exactly like the one you proposed. There's well-paying, massively in-demand roles in design, programming, marketing etc. that can be learned to a proficient level within only 6-12 weeks of part-time study and in those industries it would be easy to get hired very quickly on a decent wage, whether online / freelancing or employed in an Irish company.

batistuta9

ShaneC93 wrote: »

Does an applicant with a conviction have to tell their employer they have one? Because many employers just wouldn't check. If it's a finance/legal/tech firm then sure, they'd probably check but a min. wage position or a manual labour position? Most wouldn't.

In that situation all the person needs is some experience & recent references, once they have that they won't struggle much finding a job if the theft was far in the past. They just to work hard, low-paying jobs until they get there in retail, support, construction / labour or remote / online working.

I'm surprised there has been little investment into giving access to online courses / training for scenarios exactly like the one you proposed. There's well-paying, massively in-demand roles in design, programming, marketing etc. that can be learned to a proficient level within only 6-12 weeks of part-time study and in those industries it would be easy to get hired very quickly on a decent wage, whether online / freelancing or employed in an Irish company.

In that example & others who've been long term unemployed it's getting the experience that can be difficult. Who wants to hire someone who's been unemployed for years with little or no qualifications?


You're not becoming proficient in anything in 12 weeks in fairness, unless you're a genius at it. There's people who spend 4 years in college who aren't even proficient in those areas, never mind knowing now it actually works in industry.

Sam Quentin

I have worked most(if not all)my life.....
But even I can see that some people need and deserve social welfare payments, what kind of a country would we live in if these deserving people had no income, no cash, no handouts etc etc... We all know these people, we all know their struggles and issues etc..
What kind of a person starts a thread like this? A jelly, nosey, sad bordering on depressed person!? That's who starts a thread like this.....
And if they're not careful and let other people's issues cloud their life.. then maybe they will end up seeking social welfare payments themselves.....

bunderoon

Sam Quentin wrote: »

I have worked most(if not all)my life.....
But even I can see that some people need and deserve social welfare payments, what kind of a country would we live in if these deserving people had no income, no cash, no handouts etc etc... We all know these people, we all know their struggles and issues etc..
What kind of a person starts a thread like this? A jelly, nosey, sad bordering on depressed person!? That's who starts a thread like this.....
And if they're not careful and let other people's issues cloud their life.. then maybe they will end up seeking social welfare payments themselves.....

Is it not clear to you that it was started as to question the people who are not the ones that you are referring to.
You have those who need a hand up (we all agree that is a good thing) and others who are given a hand out over many years without progression (which isnt). The OP is clearly asking about the latter.

Sam Quentin

bunderoon wrote: »

Is it not clear to you that it was started as to question the people who are not the ones that you are referring to.
You have those who need a hand up (we all agree that is a good thing) and others who are given a hand out over many years without progression (which isnt). The OP is clearly asking about the latter.

I totally understand the op... But I don't understand how anyone can make a judgement or question the reasoning that someone is receiving social welfare payments without living with them or knowing them personally!?

bunderoon

Sam Quentin wrote: »

I totally understand the op... But I don't understand how anyone can make a judgement or question the reasoning that someone is receiving social welfare payments without living with them or knowing them personally!?

Maybe re-read the OP again.

Sam Quentin

bunderoon wrote: »

Maybe re-read the OP again.

Your starting to sound a tad(just a tad mind) condescending!?

Kirby

ceadaoin. wrote: »

These "children's payments" don't actually fully or even mostly cover the cost of raising children you know. Unless you mean cut off all payments and plunge the entire family into even worse poverty. Yeah that sounds workable. Great solution

Don't strawman. Nowhere did I suggest, or nearly suggest, "Cut off all payments". You came up with that chestnut on your own. The only person who suggested that solution.....was you. I suggested capping the number of children you can claim for.

Ultimately, you are missing the point. The state shouldn't be subsidizing people's bad decisions. If you are long-term unemployed with four children already and proceed to have a fifth that you can't afford, you should have to shoulder that responsibility yourself. Why should the state?

It's easy to judge from far away and abstractly. If you want first-hand experience of this problem, go work in a post office for a while. You begin to see some of the welfare problems first hand as you hand out the money every week.

bunderoon

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Your starting to sound a tad(just a tad mind) condescending!?

Not intentionally.
The OP is clear.

Graces7

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There is a cohort in every society who are unemployable.

Possibly they should be on disability. Possibly they are low intelligence but not quite bad enough for disability. Possibly they just had really **** parents who taught them nothing sbout being contributing citizens.

Everyone in town knows they aren't fit for work and won't offer them a job. So even if they were looking, no one will employ them.

Welfare staff know this - and they know that if the dole is cut to them, the people will have no option but to turn completely to crime for an income. We don't want that.

Thank you for this excellent post. Needed saying. And is the truth

Ally Dick

Go to New Delhi and look for the dole office. You won't find it. It doesn't exist

myshirt

Ally Dick wrote: »

Go to New Delhi and look for the dole office. You won't find it. It doesn't exist

B*stards. That's a wasted flight and 3 hours of wondering around looking for it. Anyway, at least I got a few photos for my poverty porn collection.

Dial Hard

Ally Dick wrote:

Go to New Delhi and look for the dole office. You won't find it. It doesn't exist

Are you really saying you think New Delhi is a place we should aspire to emulate???

myshirt

I think what the op is referring to here are people who can only be described as 'unemployed as f*ck'. Not plain vanilla unemployed, but 'unemployed as f*ck'.

You are talking complex issues here. It's hard to get a job when you are wearing your underwear outside your pants.