Penalty for Refusing Jobpath

Mr.H

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Many firemen are not full time. They work when they're called upon but most have other jobs that are obliged to let them leave.



When there's that many complaints? It's hard to be dismissed

lot of complaints alright from people online who are talking about being forced to get a job.................. I mean wtf they expect people to actually get a job?

Samsgirl

Mr.H wrote: »

I see a lot of people claiming rubbish about them. Harassing your employer? how exactly? What would they do? prank calls, pooh in a bag of fire? Loads of people say their employer is being harassed but I cant see anyone saying how exactly.

If you would take the extra days what exactly are you annoyed about going to jobpath then? surely they will help you?

I will tell you how.

I had the misfortune to be signing on for Job seekers for maybe 10 weeks in 2017. Six weeks in I was referred to this shower.

Before ever I finished in my previous employment I had been interviewed by a local authority and was placed fairly high on a panel and was waiting to take up employment.

Why was I on job seekers when I was almost guaranteed a job? No contract was signed and I was still keeping my options open and looking for a suitable job in case the panel was dissolved before I was offered a job.

Meanwhile I attended maybe two meetings with Turas Nua. What a shower of imbiciles is all I can say. Eventually I got my offer from the local authority and started work. No sooner had I signed off with sw and my phone and email were hoping will calls and emails from these eejets looking for details so they could claim their palcement fee for 'finding' me a job.
I blocked them from my phone and diverted their emails to spam.

BUT, somehow they found out where I was working ( have requested this under gdpr and they have yet to fullfil this request) and harrassed the HR Dept about my contract, salary and hours.

Unfortunately HR did acknowledge them and they got their money but I am in dispute with them. A friend who had a similar experience received a letter from them saying that once you are in their books they are entitled to claim a placement fee even if you source your own employment.

A shower of unprofessional leeches is all they are. Masking the true unemployment figures and ripping off the tax payer with false placement fees.

Samsgirl

Mr.H wrote: »

Why are they ringing them? Even if they are I fail to see that as harassment. Big claim. I am an employer and if someone rang me to ask if so and so is working for me I would just answer. I dont think I would feel harassed in any way.

Who cares if they set it up or not? If they were helping me even as little as with cv's then what do I care if they "set up" the job or not? Why would I give a toss. I would have a job.

18% of people referred to them have long term jobs. Is that not good considering the amount of rubbish that is talked about them and the amount of people dodging work

If someone rang you asking if someone is working there and you give out those details you are in breech of gdpr.

Mr.H

Samsgirl wrote: »

I will tell you how.

I had the misfortune to be signing on for Job seekers for maybe 10 weeks in 2017. Six weeks in I was referred to this shower.

Before ever I finished in my previous employment I had been interviewed by a local authority and was placed fairly high on a panel and was waiting to take up employment.

Why was I on job seekers when I was almost guaranteed a job? No contract was signed and I was still keeping my options open and looking for a suitable job in case the panel was dissolved before I was offered a job.

Meanwhile I attended maybe two meetings with Turas Nua. What a shower of imbiciles is all I can say. Eventually I got my offer from the local authority and started work. No sooner had I signed off with sw and my phone and email were hoping will calls and emails from these eejets looking for details so they could claim their palcement fee for 'finding' me a job.
I blocked them from my phone and diverted their emails to spam.

BUT, somehow they found out where I was working ( have requested this under gdpr and they have yet to fullfil this request) and harrassed the HR Dept about my contract, salary and hours.

Unfortunately HR did acknowledge them and they got their money but I am in dispute with them. A friend who had a similar experience received a letter from them saying that once you are in their books they are entitled to claim a placement fee even if you source your own employment.

A shower of unprofessional leeches is all they are. Masking the true unemployment figures and ripping off the tax payer with false placement fees.

Turas nua? I assume that is another one of the jobpath crowds? please excuse my ignorance.

The fact that your HR did acknowledge them shows that companies really dont care about this and its only a few people with bad attitudes (and you are coming across that way) that for some reason find it an insult that the SW outsource helping people get into employment. So you got your own job thats great. But your trying to get a victory over them for some reason thinking that they dont actually help anyone.

Do you think that people who are lets say a few years out of work, should have help to get back to work? Or should we as a society just let them alone and get a job when they are good and ready?

Samsgirl wrote: »

If someone rang you asking if someone is working there and you give out those details you are in breech of gdpr.

They are able to find out through revenue where you are working as the social welfare and revenue etc is all linked. Them asking are you working full time is not breaching and GDPR. You my friend sound like someone with a major chip. I mean ffs if you answered your phone to them they probably wouldnt have needed to call the HR. But yea you go ahead and "beat the system" who all I can see is just getting people into work. Whether they like it or not.

To be honest I think if someone is long term unemployed they should get nothing. By all means look for a job in your field but if you cant get one then you need to look at the any job is a job scenario because thats life.

Necro

Just reading through the thread and there's a simple answer to all those crying about 'right's' and 'the drain on the taxpayer from the private company' (also please see a dictionary for the definition of irony).

If you don't want to be signed up to Jobpath, then sign off the live register or change your payment from Jobseekers allowance.

JA is SUPPOSED to be paid to those who are willing and looking for employment, which is what Jobpath (Seetec and Turas Nua) assist with.

If you are not willing to seek employment and don't want to be hassled by either of these agencies, then you shouldn't be on JA, and should apply for Disability Allowance.

There is currently no other way around it other than.... Well... getting employment.


I will say that their practice of badgering a person with follow up calls and wanting to speak to their employer once they have gained employment is downright wrong, but in these cases you should always report them to your local social welfare office and cease contact immediately. If it persists there's also the route of the Gardai for harassment.


I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the companies dealing with long term unemployed (which is what JA is) at all though.

What's the alternative? 6 FAS courses and a CE scheme later and the person is still on the rock and roll, and with the hand out for another course or two they'll likely never utilise.

Ave Sodalis

Necro wrote:

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the companies dealing with long term unemployed (which is what JA is) at all though.

They have an 18% success rate. Surely a success rate that low indicates the company in itself is ineffective and needs an overhaul?

Samsgirl

Mr.H wrote: »

Turas nua? I assume that is another one of the jobpath crowds? please excuse my ignorance.

The fact that your HR did acknowledge them shows that companies really dont care about this and its only a few people with bad attitudes (and you are coming across that way) that for some reason find it an insult that the SW outsource helping people get into employment. So you got your own job thats great. But your trying to get a victory over them for some reason thinking that they dont actually help anyone.

Do you think that people who are lets say a few years out of work, should have help to get back to work? Or should we as a society just let them alone and get a job when they are good and ready?



They are able to find out through revenue where you are working as the social welfare and revenue etc is all linked. Them asking are you working full time is not breaching and GDPR. You my friend sound like someone with a major chip. I mean ffs if you answered your phone to them they probably wouldnt have needed to call the HR. But yea you go ahead and "beat the system" who all I can see is just getting people into work. Whether they like it or not.

To be honest I think if someone is long term unemployed they should get nothing. By all means look for a job in your field but if you cant get one then you need to look at the any job is a job scenario because thats life.

The fact that my. HR Dept gave out that information to them has nothing to do with them caring or not caring. It's the public sector, it's incompetence.

Revenue did not divulge any information to them as I asked them and they said no, it would be a data breech. And I didn't tell social welfare where as was working as the didn't want to or need to know.

I have zero chips, thank you. I am incredibly happy. Nor am I your friend. To be honest, you are the one with the bee in their bonnet about then. Read the thread about them on the State Benefits thread and you will see many more have had similar experiences.

The notion that the are there to help the long term unemploymed is ludicrous. They go after the people who have just finished a role ie in my case 6 weeks.

Too hungover to debate the rest of your post but I do disagree with it.

Johnnycanyon

Mr.H wrote: »

Why are they ringing them? Even if they are I fail to see that as harassment. Big claim. I am an employer and if someone rang me to ask if so and so is working for me I would just answer. I dont think I would feel harassed in any way.

Who cares if they set it up or not? If they were helping me even as little as with cv's then what do I care if they "set up" the job or not? Why would I give a toss. I would have a job.

18% of people referred to them have long term jobs. Is that not good considering the amount of rubbish that is talked about them and the amount of people dodging work

They are phoning people's employers to claim their commission off SW.. I actually got my own job which had nothing to do with TN so they had no idea where I was working,or so I thought until they started phoning my boss..He hadn't a clue who they were so wouldn't give out any info about me. I wonder did they still get their couple of thousand euro commission of taxpayers money?

Mr.H

Samsgirl wrote:

The notion that the are there to help the long term unemploymed is ludicrous. They go after the people who have just finished a role ie in my case 6 weeks.

You said 10 weeks last time now your saying 6. Hmmm

Also i doubt they pick and choose who goes to them. I am petty sure it is social welfare who choose.

At he end of the day its this simple

You ask for job seekers allowance and in return you agree that you will seek full time work and take up any job or help to get a job that the social welfare provide.

Its in their basic t&c's. I've been there myself. Many have. The faux outrage is usually from people who think they should be allowed to get the dole and not have to prove they are looking for work. You want jsa thats fine. But your looking for work and will accept help like it or not.

As for private companies. Ive said it a few times, who gives a toss if they are private or taking credit for jobs they didnt get? If you have a job it shouldnt matter one bit. They are a necessary entity because there are loads of people unemployed more than "6/10 weeks" that do need help to get back to work.

All these figures about their low success rate is probably to do with people who do not want help or to actually work. Of course they are going to see some sort of resistance from wasters. Not saying all social welfare recipients are wasters of course. But a really big number are unfortunately.

Samsgirl

Mr.H wrote: »

You said 10 weeks last time now your saying 6. Hmmm

Also i doubt they pick and choose who goes to them. I am petty sure it is social welfare who choose.

At he end of the day its this simple

You ask for job seekers allowance and in return you agree that you will seek full time work and take up any job or help to get a job that the social welfare provide.

Its in their basic t&c's. I've been there myself. Many have. The faux outrage is usually from people who think they should be allowed to get the dole and not have to prove they are looking for work. You want jsa thats fine. But your looking for work and will accept help like it or not.

As for private companies. Ive said it a few times, who gives a toss if they are private or taking credit for jobs they didnt get? If you have a job it shouldnt matter one bit. They are a necessary entity because there are loads of people unemployed more than "6/10 weeks" that do need help to get back to work.

All these figures about their low success rate is probably to do with people who do not want help or to actually work. Of course they are going to see some sort of resistance from wasters. Not saying all social welfare recipients are wasters of course. But a really big number are unfortunately.

I actually said maybe 10 weeks.
As for the rest.......

Johnnycanyon

I think TN should be there for those who wish to avail of their services. For me a man of 60 who has worked in many many jobs since I was 16 in Ireland UK and Europe the last thing I needed was a young girl barely out of school telling me how to get a job. Also their threatening tone does nothing to instill confidence in them, regularly reminding people that they will be docked or cut off their money if they don't do this or that.. Even the first day ,the so called "Welcome day" they had a sour faced old harridan from SW reminding everyone of the consequences if they do not tow the line.. I mean people are not stupid and don't need to be treated like school kids or imbeciles. I am so glad to be away from them and pity anybody who has to endure this degradation and insult to their intelligence..

Mr.H

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

I think TN should be there for those who wish to avail of their services. For me a man of 60 who has worked in many many jobs since I was 16 in Ireland UK and Europe the last thing I needed was a young girl barely out of school telling me how to get a job. Also their threatening tone does nothing to instill confidence in them, regularly reminding people that they will be docked or cut off their money if they don't do this or that.. Even the first day ,the so called "Welcome day" they had a sour faced old harridan from SW reminding everyone of the consequences if they do not tow the line.. I mean people are not stupid and don't need to be treated like school kids or imbeciles. I am so glad to be away from them and pity anybody who has to endure this degradation and insult to their intelligence..

So what about people who dont wish to avail?

What about people who are happy doing nothing and claiming JSA?

Of course you have to "tow the line". Its simple. You want JSA and you have signed a contract with SW to take up any job offers or help to find a job.

Although it would be great if we could just get job seekers allowance and find a job when we are good and ready wouldnt it

Mr.H

Also what is this about jobsplus that they are talking about? since I didnt know anything about this job path I have been googling it. They give employers a grant of up to 10k for taking on a person full time???????????? wtf? that is amazing. Why wouldnt every employer not want to know about that? Before I said I wouldnt care if they rang me. Now I am thinking why are they not calling me and giving me 10k

Ave Sodalis

Mr.H wrote: »

So what about people who dont wish to avail?

What about people who are happy doing nothing and claiming JSA?

Of course you have to "tow the line". Its simple. You want JSA and you have signed a contract with SW to take up any job offers or help to find a job.

Although it would be great if we could just get job seekers allowance and find a job when we are good and ready wouldnt it

You are aware that there aren't as many of these people as you seem to believe there are? For someone who self admits they know very little about how the social welfare system works, you seem to have some very big (and ignorant) opinions on it.

Ave Sodalis

Mr.H wrote: »

Also what is this about jobsplus that they are talking about? since I didnt know anything about this job path I have been googling it. They give employers a grant of up to 10k for taking on a person full time???????????? wtf? that is amazing. Why wouldnt every employer not want to know about that? Before I said I wouldnt care if they rang me. Now I am thinking why are they not calling me and giving me 10k

Jobplus is not Jobpath

Nermal

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

They have an 18% success rate. Surely a success rate that low indicates the company in itself is ineffective and needs an overhaul?

Their success is not really measured by how many people referred to them find work.

It's disincentivising people to see claiming JA as a lifestyle choice, which is a lot harder to measure.

Judging by how much they get people's backs up, it seems to me they're doing pretty well.

Mr.H

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You are aware that there aren't as many of these people as you seem to believe there are? For someone who self admits they know very little about how the social welfare system works, you seem to have some very big (and ignorant) opinions on it.

I dont claim to be an expert other than spending a couple of years on JSA myself at one stage.

but the fact remains, there is a lot of people on JSA for over 3/4 years and that is an issue. The OP ffs has been claiming for at least 4 years. if there are lots of people who are unemployed for over 4 years then they obviously need help. Either they dont want to work or they for some reason are having a lot of bad luck looking so need help.

So can you point to what I am saying in this post as incorrect?

Not ignorance. just stating facts

Ave Sodalis

Nermal wrote: »

Their success is not really measured by how many people referred to them find work.

It's disincentivising people to see claiming JA as a lifestyle choice, which is a lot harder to measure.

Judging by how much they get people's backs up, it seems to me they're doing pretty well.

Considering that is their role, and that is what they are getting paid to do, surely that's what they should be measured on.

Johnnycanyon

Mr.H wrote: »

So what about people who dont wish to avail?

What about people who are happy doing nothing and claiming JSA?

Of course you have to "tow the line". Its simple. You want JSA and you have signed a contract with SW to take up any job offers or help to find a job.

Although it would be great if we could just get job seekers allowance and find a job when we are good and ready wouldnt it

There always was and always will be people who never want to work, what to do with them ? I don't know. There are these types of people around where I live and to be honest I don't think anyone would give them a job.. However my tow the line comment was to highlight the constant threats coming from TN, I know as does the vast majority of people who sign on that you have to be available and looking for work..When people sign this on signing up, and then every time they visit the SW office they understand what it means and don't need to have it rammed down their necks by TN staff.People (the vast majority of) are not stupid.

Mr.H

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Jobplus is not Jobpath

Just looked at the TN website and they claim to administer Jobsplus. Maybe its just that they help facilitate the service but thats a pretty good idea

Ave Sodalis

Mr.H wrote: »

I dont claim to be an expert other than spending a couple of years on JSA myself at one stage.

but the fact remains, there is a lot of people on JSA for over 3/4 years and that is an issue. The OP ffs has been claiming for at least 4 years. if there are lots of people who are unemployed for over 4 years then they obviously need help. Either they dont want to work or they for some reason are having a lot of bad luck looking so need help.

So can you point to what I am saying in this post as incorrect?

Not ignorance. just stating facts

There's a few, yes. JobPath, as you know, target people from any stage, though they claim it's over a year. Almost all of your posts on this thread directed to me have made things up about me to justify your own opinion. You can't claim that that is not ignorance. You also have no idea how many people are on JS over 4 years, but given your tendency to continue on stating things as fact, even when you have been told otherwise, I'm sure you have a figure in your head that constitutes a lot.

Yes, there are people in this country that don't want to work and for some reason unknown to me, want to stay on JS. JobPath isn't going to matter much to these people.

Mr.H

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

There always was and always will be people who never want to work, what to do with them ? I don't know. There are these types of people around where I live and to be honest I don't think anyone would give them a job.. However my tow the line comment was to highlight the constant threats coming from TN, I know as does the vast majority of people who sign on that you have to be available and looking for work..When people sign this on signing up, and then every time they visit the SW office they understand what it means and don't need to have it rammed down their necks by TN staff.People (the vast majority of) are not stupid.

this time last year over 10,000 people under the age of 25 were considered long term unemployed (over 12 months)*. That is a lot of people who either cant or wont work.

Surely services like Seetec are needed in this case? Giving them the "option" is not an option. These kids need a kick up the arse to get a job. So while I have every sympathy for a 60 year old lady who has worked all her life, being sent to them. I have no sympathy for these young lads and ladies being forced to go there. 10k under the age of 25 are getting JSA for over 12 months???? Seriously how can anyone pretend we dont need jobpath

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/more-than-10-000-under-25s-now-among-long-term-unemployed-1.3319388

Mr.H

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

There's a few, yes. JobPath, as you know, target people from any stage, though they claim it's over a year. Almost all of your posts on this thread directed to me have made things up about me to justify your own opinion. You can't claim that that is not ignorance. You also have no idea how many people are on JS over 4 years, but given your tendency to continue on stating things as fact, even when you have been told otherwise, I'm sure you have a figure in your head that constitutes a lot.

Yes, there are people in this country that don't want to work and for some reason unknown to me, want to stay on JS. JobPath isn't going to matter much to these people.

This is true but I do know how many people under the age of 25 are claiming JSA for over 12 months

10 thousand!!!

stateofflux

The whole thing is a farce. Did not work in UK and they stopped doing it

Im fully employed for years now but annoyed that im paying for these costly 'activation' UK companies hired to massage govt. job creation figures.

its obvious to me from this recent article that its not viable based on its initial objective

https://www.thejournal.ie/jobpath-fees-4367277-Nov2018/

Ave Sodalis

Mr.H wrote: »

this time last year over 10,000 people under the age of 25 were considered long term unemployed (over 12 months)*. That is a lot of people who either cant or wont work.

Surely services like Seetec are needed in this case? Giving them the "option" is not an option. These kids need a kick up the arse to get a job. So while I have every sympathy for a 60 year old lady who has worked all her life, being sent to them. I have no sympathy for these young lads and ladies being forced to go there. 10k under the age of 25 are getting JSA for over 12 months???? Seriously how can anyone pretend we dont need jobpath

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/more-than-10-000-under-25s-now-among-long-term-unemployed-1.3319388

That article is from a year ago


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/lr/liveregisternovember2018/


https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/youth-unemployment-rate

Mr.H

stateofflux wrote:

Im fully employed for years now but annoyed that im paying for these costly 'activation' UK companies hired to massage govt. job creation figures.

I thought someone said the activation fee was 300. Thats one and a half weeks jsa. Surely if they bring someone 2 weeks closer to a job either by helping them or annoying them, then its worth it?

Would you prefer to pay 10,000 young people (under 25) to sit at home for over a year?

Mr.H

Ave Sodalis wrote:

That article is from a year ago

I know. I said in my post that it was this time last year indicating that the figure was a year ago.

Ok so it was last year. If the figure has fallen then the system is obviously working.

I cant see the new figure but it did say that claiments under 25 have fallen by 5000 (actually 4597 or something like that but im rounding up which helps massage your numbers more than mine).

So lets say 5k and pretend that every single one of those was long term unemployed. Then lets pretend my article didnt say over 10k under 25's. That means 9500 people under 25 are on jsa for at least 12 months right this second.

How is that not more of an issue than paying a company to either help the ones that need it or force the lazy ones?

Ave Sodalis

Mr.H wrote:

I cant see the new figure but it did say that claiments under 25 have fallen by 5000 (actually 4597 or something like that but im rounding up which helps massage your numbers more than mine).

Your posts are incredibly patronising, you know that?

Mr.H wrote:

So lets say 5k and pretend that every single one of those was long term unemployed. Then lets pretend my article didnt say over 10k under 25's. That means 9500 people under 25 are on jsa for at least 12 months right this second.

Why would we pretend that every single one of them are long term unemployed? Again, making things up to suit your narrative, and then getting offended at the stuff you just made up.

Mr.H

Ave Sodalis wrote:

Why would we pretend that every single one of them are long term unemployed? Again, making things up to suit your narrative, and then getting offended at the stuff you just made up.

Read it again. I said lets pretend the 5k people who are no longer on JA were long term unemployed. That was suiting your narrative. The figure helps you not me. If it was lets say 3k that were only unemployed who signes off that means 2k less comes off my 10k figure from last year.......

Anyway upon looking at the figured you provided it turns out 20,000 people under the age of 25 are on JA (just shy of 10k of these long term of course)

In fact almost 90,000 people are considered long term unemployed. How is that not a bigger issue to people?

90k people are struggling to find work

Mr.H

Ave Sodalis wrote:

Your posts are incredibly patronising, you know that?

Sorry if i am coming across that way. Not easy to show context when making a point. I really dont mean to be patronising.

Johnnycanyon

Mr.H wrote: »

this time last year over 10,000 people under the age of 25 were considered long term unemployed (over 12 months)*. That is a lot of people who either cant or wont work.

Surely services like Seetec are needed in this case? Giving them the "option" is not an option. These kids need a kick up the arse to get a job. So while I have every sympathy for a 60 year old lady who has worked all her life, being sent to them. I have no sympathy for these young lads and ladies being forced to go there. 10k under the age of 25 are getting JSA for over 12 months???? Seriously how can anyone pretend we dont need jobpath

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/more-than-10-000-under-25s-now-among-long-term-unemployed-1.3319388

I was unaware of this fact. I think these young people would be better off being trained properly for jobs skills that are needed in the workforce.Having been with TN/seetec I could see how you could do your year and avoid taking up employment if you were that way inclined.

splinter65

Mr.H wrote: »

Also what is this about jobsplus that they are talking about? since I didnt know anything about this job path I have been googling it. They give employers a grant of up to 10k for taking on a person full time???????????? wtf? that is amazing. Why wouldnt every employer not want to know about that? Before I said I wouldnt care if they rang me. Now I am thinking why are they not calling me and giving me 10k

They don’t call you if you are an employer. You call them. Why would SW start phoning every employer asking them do they want to avail of the opportunity ?

Mr.H

Johnnycanyon wrote:

I was unaware of this fact. I think these young people would be better off being trained properly for jobs skills that are needed in the workforce.Having been with TN/seetec I could see how you could do your year and avoid taking up employment if you were that way inclined.

I agree. Maybe if seetwc and tn offered apprenticeships and routes into college as well as jobs it would be more beneficial?

splinter65 wrote:

They don’t call you if you are an employer. You call them. Why would SW start phoning every employer asking them do they want to avail of the opportunity ?

Sw no but my point was that if seetec are calling maybe they would be suggesting it

Ave Sodalis

Mr.H wrote:

Read it again. I said lets pretend the 5k people who are no longer on JA were long term unemployed. That was suiting your narrative. The figure helps you not me. If it was lets say 3k that were only unemployed who signes off that means 2k less comes off my 10k figure from last year.......

But why would we make that up? What possibly reason would we have for making stuff up?

Mr.H wrote:

90k people are struggling to find work

Bare in mind that the live register also does include people on part time work and people like myself who rarely get payment, but is on it just in case there is a weekend I don't get work for whatever reason. They make up a considerable percentage. Majority of people are also short term unemployed, based on those links.

stateofflux

Mr.H wrote: »

I thought someone said the activation fee was 300. Thats one and a half weeks jsa. Surely if they bring someone 2 weeks closer to a job either by helping them or annoying them, then its worth it?

Would you prefer to pay 10,000 young people (under 25) to sit at home for over a year?

You are missing the bigger picture here. its being rolled out as cost saving method to the states welfare bill.. i think its a false economy.. based mainly on the very low % of 'activated' participants that remain in employment after 12 months, the cost of funding these companies and commission fees involved and the true savings involved (which is difficult to extract from the spin)

I also question what constitutes 'unemployed'...how many of the figure are casually part time employed or on another education or disability related benefit.

Also if the current unemployment rate is now on or below 5% and considered near full employment..the activation base is much smaller than 5 years ago

I hate welfare cheats & lifetime dole scroungers as much as any hard working tax payer does, but i'm not convinced that the actual numbers of these people match the numbers government claims.

the main thing that irks me about the whole thing is that it seems to be more about quota ticking to get commission with little emphasis on long term skills matched gainful employment...this is where i question the true savings with a revolving door of people employed for short periods coming back again and again

john williams

According to the minister regina doherty you don't have to sign contract with them but you have to sign up for the personal progression plan what's the difference i mean if you refuse the first they will send you to dole office and you will be sanctioned. dole office will go by what they tell them as they assume the 2 are the same thing ? And will sanction you

splinter65

john williams wrote: »

According to the minister regina doherty you don't have to sign contract with them but you have to sign up for the personal progression plan what's the difference i mean if you refuse the first they will send you to dole office and you will be sanctioned. dole office will go by what they tell them as they assume the 2 are the same thing ? And will sanction you

Best thing your niece can do is just go along to the appointment and see if she can’t get a bit of help to find another job. What harm can it do? Hopefully she’ll get something that suits her soon and then everyone’s happy.

king2

john williams wrote: »

According to the minister regina doherty you don't have to sign contract with them but you have to sign up for the personal progression plan what's the difference i mean if you refuse the first they will send you to dole office and you will be sanctioned. dole office will go by what they tell them as they assume the 2 are the same thing ? And will sanction you

The contract and so called personal progression plan are one and the same. The official line now is that you cannot be sanctioned for refusing to sign the ppp after a successful court case by a man who had his payment cut for not signing. However in reality people are still having their payments cut for not signing. My advice would be just to sign the stupid thing. In practicality it does not make much difference to the Jobpath victim as they still have to complete the so called program and put up with all the rubbish whether they sign or not.

Ursus Horribilis

Are you looking for work?

john williams

king2 wrote: »

The contract and so called personal progression plan are one and the same. The official line now is that you cannot be sanctioned for refusing to sign the ppp after a successful court case by a man who had his payment cut for not signing. However in reality people are still having their payments cut for not signing. My advice would be just to sign the stupid thing. In practicality it does not make much difference to the Jobpath victim as they still have to complete the so called program and put up with all the rubbish whether they sign or not.

Is there a official document stating that they can't sanction or give warning given that you state above they are still sanctioning seems kinda weird not abiding by their on official line

king2

john williams wrote: »

Is there a official document stating that they can't sanction or give warning given that you state above they are still sanctioning seems kinda weird not abiding by their on official line

The head of the dept of social welfare John Conlon stated the following at a dail public accounts committee meeting in march 2018

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_employment_affairs_and_social_protection/2018-03-08/



"Mr. John Conlon: I want to talk about personal progression plans for a moment as I be-
lieve there is a context that needs to be explained. Deputy Brady asked a very direct question
as to whether it is a contract. It is not. It is an agreement between the client - the person who
is receiving jobseeker payments - and their personal adviser as to how they agree to proceed in
terms of making them more job-ready and seeking employment. There is no direct penalty if a
person does not sign a personal progression plan. We make decisions on whether a person has
a continuing entitlement to a jobseeker’s payment in the round. The legislation requires people
to be available for and genuinely seeking work. Seeking work is part of activation services and
getting people work ready. While a refusal to sign a personal progression plan may not mean
that a sanction will be applied, our deciding officer should be looking at decisions in the round
and having regard to that and whether the person is participating in JobPath or any other acti-
vation service we offer and is continuously seeking employment. That has to be taken in the
round, not of itself, but deciding officers should be looking at the person’s overall capacity of
engagement with the service, of seeking employment and continuing to do so.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins: So failure to sign a personal progression plan is not a
grounds to withdraw payment?

Mr. John Conlon: In itself, it is not a ground but it could indicate that a person is not en-
gaging otherwise as well. Every case would be dealt with on its own, but if a person does not
sign a personal progression plan, it may indicate to a deciding officer to question whether the
individual is engaging with the service, and genuinely seeking work. It will be an indicator
rather than a ground in itself."




So what he is saying in effect is that if you dont sign the ppp they will still penalise you but say its because you are not "engaging" properly. Dont forget you are dealing with a highly corrupt Government and its State agencies.

RocketRaccoon

Did OP ever get a job? It's been 2 months now

king2

king2 wrote: »

The head of the dept of social welfare John Conlon stated the following at a dail public accounts committee meeting in march 2018

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_employment_affairs_and_social_protection/2018-03-08/



"Mr. John Conlon: I want to talk about personal progression plans for a moment as I be-
lieve there is a context that needs to be explained. Deputy Brady asked a very direct question
as to whether it is a contract. It is not. It is an agreement between the client - the person who
is receiving jobseeker payments - and their personal adviser as to how they agree to proceed in
terms of making them more job-ready and seeking employment. There is no direct penalty if a
person does not sign a personal progression plan. We make decisions on whether a person has
a continuing entitlement to a jobseeker’s payment in the round. The legislation requires people
to be available for and genuinely seeking work. Seeking work is part of activation services and
getting people work ready. While a refusal to sign a personal progression plan may not mean
that a sanction will be applied, our deciding officer should be looking at decisions in the round
and having regard to that and whether the person is participating in JobPath or any other acti-
vation service we offer and is continuously seeking employment. That has to be taken in the
round, not of itself, but deciding officers should be looking at the person’s overall capacity of
engagement with the service, of seeking employment and continuing to do so.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins: So failure to sign a personal progression plan is not a
grounds to withdraw payment?

Mr. John Conlon: In itself, it is not a ground but it could indicate that a person is not en-
gaging otherwise as well. Every case would be dealt with on its own, but if a person does not
sign a personal progression plan, it may indicate to a deciding officer to question whether the
individual is engaging with the service, and genuinely seeking work. It will be an indicator
rather than a ground in itself."




So what he is saying in effect is that if you dont sign the ppp they will still penalise you but say its because you are not "engaging" properly. Dont forget you are dealing with a highly corrupt Government and its State agencies.

Why are you reading all this crap. If you are looking for a job then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

If you aren't looking for a job you shouldn't really be expecting anything to be honest.

splinter65

king2 wrote: »

The head of the dept of social welfare John Conlon stated the following at a dail public accounts committee meeting in march 2018

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_employment_affairs_and_social_protection/2018-03-08/



"Mr. John Conlon: I want to talk about personal progression plans for a moment as I be-
lieve there is a context that needs to be explained. Deputy Brady asked a very direct question
as to whether it is a contract. It is not. It is an agreement between the client - the person who
is receiving jobseeker payments - and their personal adviser as to how they agree to proceed in
terms of making them more job-ready and seeking employment. There is no direct penalty if a
person does not sign a personal progression plan. We make decisions on whether a person has
a continuing entitlement to a jobseeker’s payment in the round. The legislation requires people
to be available for and genuinely seeking work. Seeking work is part of activation services and
getting people work ready. While a refusal to sign a personal progression plan may not mean
that a sanction will be applied, our deciding officer should be looking at decisions in the round
and having regard to that and whether the person is participating in JobPath or any other acti-
vation service we offer and is continuously seeking employment. That has to be taken in the
round, not of itself, but deciding officers should be looking at the person’s overall capacity of
engagement with the service, of seeking employment and continuing to do so.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins: So failure to sign a personal progression plan is not a
grounds to withdraw payment?

Mr. John Conlon: In itself, it is not a ground but it could indicate that a person is not en-
gaging otherwise as well. Every case would be dealt with on its own, but if a person does not
sign a personal progression plan, it may indicate to a deciding officer to question whether the
individual is engaging with the service, and genuinely seeking work. It will be an indicator
rather than a ground in itself."




So what he is saying in effect is that if you dont sign the ppp they will still penalise you but say its because you are not "engaging" properly. Dont forget you are dealing with a highly corrupt Government and its State agencies.

Can you give us examples of where the government has been proven to be corrupt?

john williams

Just came across something in irishtimes online
Think it is current haven't had time to look through it fully says something about turas nua parent company working links uk in emergency talks financial troubles .don't think it will affect turas nua here .?

king2

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/emergency-talks-under-way-on-future-of-company-which-administers-half-of-jobpath-1.3798365?mode=amp

Working Links were accused of wide scale fraud some years ago in the UK during the delivery of a program similar to Jobpath. FG awarded them the Jobpath Contract nevertheless. delighted the scum Company are gone into Liquidation, hopefully they bring Turas Nua down with them.

Ursus Horribilis

How about finding a job instead of putting all your energy into ranting about Jobpath. When did you last have a proper job?

king2

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

How about finding a job instead of putting all your energy into ranting about Jobpath. When did you last have a proper job?

How about getting a Life instead of being a pathetic Troll on boards. When did you last have a life?

DubInTheWest

Did I not hear something on the news or maybe on here that turas nua and seetec was defeated in the dail and was to be abolished ? Maybe I'm wrong.

Ursus Horribilis

So why not answer the question? You've been asked it more than once and you're not answering. How long are you out of work?