FF/FG/Green Next Government

Brendan Bendar

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Oh I beg to differ there, plenty of people on the dole we have never truly helped, throwing them a fee quid every week isn't exactly the help they need

Unfortunately it does behove folk at times to help themselves.

You see, it’s a balancing act, in some situations the more help given the more help expected, and it slowly becomes a lifestyle choice.

Moving from ‘scheme’ to ‘scheme’ with never any positive outcome.

Whole area needs a serious shaking up imo, and more robust attempts to get people off the streets and productive.

Edgware

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Oh I beg to differ there, plenty of people on the dole we have never truly helped, throwing them a fee quid every week isn't exactly the help they need

There will always be some people who because of health factors, family issues who are not capable of taking on full time employment. I know of a few that were taken on to social schemes maybe doing 15 hours a week. We had one man in our sports club who had health issues. But he was taken on and came in 3 hours a day doing stuff like light gardening, helping set out the furniture for meetings, small time decorating. We would all have tea break with him and a bit of a chat. It gave him an extra few euros, a reason to get up every day. Our society should be able to help people like that. Then of course there are a certain
number who just are unemployable. They are perfectly happy doing nothing

Wanderer78

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Unfortunately it does behove folk at times to help themselves.

You see, it’s a balancing act, in some situations the more help given the more help expected, and it slowly becomes a lifestyle choice.

Moving from ‘scheme’ to ‘scheme’ with never any positive outcome.

Whole area needs a serious shaking up imo, and more robust attempts to get people off the streets and productive.

Edgware wrote: »

There will always be some people who because of health factors, family issues who are not capable of taking on full time employment. I know of a few that were taken on to social schemes maybe doing 15 hours a week. We had one man in our sports club who had health issues. But he was taken on and came in 3 hours a day doing stuff like light gardening, helping set out the furniture for meetings, small time decorating. We would all have tea break with him and a bit of a chat. It gave him an extra few euros, a reason to get up every day. Our society should be able to help people like that. Then of course there are a certain
number who just are unemployable. They are perfectly happy doing nothing

long term unemployment is very complex, we ve never truly helped those that find themselves in these situations

The_Conductor

Wanderer78 wrote: »

long term unemployment is very complex, we ve never truly helped those that find themselves in these situations

We've gotten the number of long term unemployed down to 4.17% (before the current mess)- which was considered to be 'full employment' as this core group tend to be unemployable for one reason or another. Hopefully in time the current cohort of unemployed will be encouraged into gainful employment (or education).

Once you get unemployment down to a certain level- you're simply expending resourses with no outcomes- if you continue to try to browbeat a small cohort into employment- it simply doesn't happen.

Wanderer78

The_Conductor wrote: »

We've gotten the number of long term unemployed down to 4.17% (before the current mess)- which was considered to be 'full employment' as this core group tend to be unemployable for one reason or another. Hopefully in time the current cohort of unemployed will be encouraged into gainful employment (or education).

Once you get unemployment down to a certain level- you're simply expending resourses with no outcomes- if you continue to try to browbeat a small cohort into employment- it simply doesn't happen.

the needs of the long term unemployed have never been met, you ll find most have complex undiagnosed issues and disorders

Shefwedfan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

long term unemployment is very complex, we ve never truly helped those that find themselves in these situations

You have a certain section that are claiming unemployment but provide childcare etc. These people have zero interest in ever coming off unemployment

Wanderer78

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You have a certain section that are claiming unemployment but provide childcare etc. These people have zero interest in ever coming off unemployment

so why do they do this, is it because they have limited options for employment, which may only pay a very limited amount?

The_Conductor

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the needs of the long term unemployed have never been met, you ll find most have complex undiagnosed issues and disorders

Certainly- in pretty much the same way that its thought that the majority of long term homeless people have complex mental health, psychiatric and addiction issues. We've consistently been treating the symptoms- homelessness or unemployment- rather than actually catering for the actual needs of these people- which must include resources to deal with mental health issues, addiction and other issues.

This is why a little over 4.1% is seen as 'full-employment' as the cohort in this 4.1% have issues which preclude them being employed (by normal employers in normal jobs).

Beating a drum about unemployment- or homelessness- that refuses to acknowledge the extremely complex needs of the majority of the actual homeless- or the cohort of unemployed and their specific needs (which very often is nothing whatsoever that additional training courses or forcing them to attend pointless interviews will solve)- is completely and utterly myopic- and indeed- plays wholly into the hands of the industries who have sprung up to push for the rights of the unemployed or the homeless. Try persuading Threshold to push for mental health resources for the homeless- they're not not interested- it doesn't fit their agenda.

This pigeon holing of people- has had horrific consequences for a great many people- who genuinely need help- just not the help that the Media, Threshold and other organisations have in mind for them............

Shefwedfan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so why do they do this, is it because they have limited options for employment, which may only pay a very limited amount?

Not really.


A child minder could get up to 1200 per month cash in hand for minding 2 kids. No tax. Then get unemployment plus all the "perks" with that. More kids, more money



In reality the child minder in most cases ends up with more than the person paying her to mind her children.

Wanderer78

The_Conductor wrote: »

Certainly- in pretty much the same way that its thought that the majority of long term homeless people have complex mental health, psychiatric and addiction issues. We've consistently been treating the symptoms- homelessness or unemployment- rather than actually catering for the actual needs of these people- which must include resources to deal with mental health issues, addiction and other issues.

This is why a little over 4.1% is seen as 'full-employment' as the cohort in this 4.1% have issues which preclude them being employed (by normal employers in normal jobs).

Beating a drum about unemployment- or homelessness- that refuses to acknowledge the extremely complex needs of the majority of the actual homeless- or the cohort of unemployed and their specific needs (which very often is nothing whatsoever that additional training courses or forcing them to attend pointless interviews will solve)- is completely and utterly myopic- and indeed- plays wholly into the hands of the industries who have sprung up to push for the rights of the unemployed or the homeless. Try persuading Threshold to push for mental health resources for the homeless- they're not not interested- it doesn't fit their agenda.

This pigeon holing of people- has had horrific consequences for a great many people- who genuinely need help- just not the help that the Media, Threshold and other organisations have in mind for them............

i would some what agree and disagree, largely agree though, homelessness and long term unemployment are extremely complex issues, of which, we dont truly understand or know how to deal with, clearly obviously, but theres sufficient research and evidence to show, we really arent dealing with the underlining issues at all, in fact in many cases, we re exasperating them. its ultimately due to multi system failure in addressing these underlining issues, of which i suspect, we dont really want to open these can of worms, as its truly a reflection of ourselves as a society. our mental health services are a disgrace, we should be ashamed of ourselves, but we ve decided its best to ridicule these individuals even further, rather than trying to actually help them. its also important to remember, ' every force has an equal and opposite reaction', hence why many of the organisations you ve mentioned behave in such a manner, it ultimately results in everybody loses.

Wanderer78

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Not really.


A child minder could get up to 1200 per month cash in hand for minding 2 kids. No tax. Then get unemployment plus all the "perks" with that. More kids, more money



In reality the child minder in most cases ends up with more than the person paying her to mind her children.

so is there something wrong with childcare in this country, why does it exist at all?

Shefwedfan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so is there something wrong with childcare in this country, why does it exist at all?

Loads of reasons.



Of course something is wrong with childcare.

Wanderer78

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Loads of reasons.



Of course something is wrong with childcare.

so what are these reasons?

Edgware

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You have a certain section that are claiming unemployment but provide childcare etc. These people have zero interest in ever coming off unemployment

You also have middle aged single men who probably never held down a job and living with a widowed parent. They are actually acting as carers, sorting the breakfast, getting messages etc. I know a number like that. Then they might spend the afternoon in the bookies and home to sort the evening meal. Between them and the elderly parent theres 500/600 a week going into the house. However if they werent there the parent might be in a care home at 2000 plus a week cost. So the long term unemoyed is a complex issue.

Wanderer78

Edgware wrote: »

You also have middle aged single men who probably never held down a job and living with a widowed parent. They are actually acting as carers, sorting the breakfast, getting messages etc. I know a number like that. Then they might spend the afternoon in the bookies and home to sort the evening meal. Between them and the elderly parent theres 500/600 a week going into the house. However if they werent there the parent might be in a care home at 2000 plus a week cost. So the long term unemoyed is a complex issue.

bang on, theres clearly issues going on in the elderly care section of our health care sector

Shefwedfan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so what are these reasons?

Take a stab at it, Im sure you know yourself

Wanderer78

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Take a stab at it, Im sure you know yourself

ive explained it enough here, so i dont need to explain it further, i would like to hear other peoples opinions on the matter though, including your own

efanton

If you believe in the idea of full employment, (very very close to 100%) then you also have to agree that employers cannot refuse to employ
certain people . Personally I think that's a very dangerous and slippery slope to think of going down.

Also you have to understand that 'unemployment' in Ireland has actually morphed into something that really does not mean people who do not work.
Until zero hours contracts were banned many of these workers were officially unemployed as they signed on regularly but declared the few hours they worked. Some businesses were taking advantage of this loop hole by deliberately employing multiple people for less than 16 hours a week rather than employ one person full time to avoid certain obligations that all employers have with regards full time employees.

Also there are a number of people who are receiving long term medical treatment (such as those on chemotherapy for cancer) but yet do not qualify for disability or other longer term benefits but instead remain on the live register as they are unemployable for obvious reasons.

Many people are full time carers for other family members with medical or mental disabilities but yet are are lumped in with the unemployed.
Do we consider these people full time employed, in which case you must also be advocating that these people are paid at least the minimum wage by the government, and are entitled to all the benefits that those who are employed are entitled to such as sick pay, paid holidays, and contributory pensions which they are currently no entitled to. Currently the government avoids considerable additional expense by not classing these people as employed.

Then you have those that have serious criminal records. Do they lie on their jobs applications and claim they have no criminal record, do we make it illegal for employers to enquire as to whether a prospective employee has a criminal record , or do we force employers to employ such people? As it stands most employers will ask this question and deliberately avoid employing them.

And finally we have those that are illiterate, or come from certain communities that are often discriminated against such as the travelling community. Although it is illegal to discriminate against them, as long as a employers can show that more than one person applied for a job, its easy for them to avoid any claim that they deliberately discriminated against a member of such communities. Do we change the laws so that this cant happen, or force large employers to have no choice but to employ these people as a small percentage of their workforce?

You need to be careful what you wish for.
There are a number of people that will never work by choice but they are a very small percentage. As for the rest that are currently 'long term unemployed' the cost to the state and society could be many times more if you really insisted on close to 100% employment.

Wanderer78

efanton wrote: »

Then you have those that have serious criminal records. Do they lie on their jobs applications and claim they have no criminal record, do we make it illegal for employers to enquire as to whether a prospective employee has a criminal record , or do we force employers to employ such people? As it stands most employers will ask this question and deliberately avoid employing them.

And finally we have those that are illiterate, or come from certain communities that are often discriminated against such as the travelling community. Although it is illegal to discriminate against them, as long as a employers can show that more than one person applied for a job, its easy for them to avoid any claim that they deliberately discriminated against a member of such communities. Do we change the laws so that this cant happen, or force large employers to have no choice but to employ these people as a small percentage of their workforce?

you ll find undiagnosed learning disorders/disabilities are common amongst prison populations and the long term unemployed, otherwise, great post

James Brown

What is sad is that Covid aside, unemployment has been relatively low for some time yet all societies ills are seemingly down to 'dem that don't want to work' gaming the system. It's farcical.
It's quite obvious something isn't working right within 'the way we do business'.

Wanderer78

Bowie wrote: »

What is sad is that Covid aside, unemployment has been relatively low for some time yet all societies ills are seemingly down to 'dem that don't want to work' gaming the system. It's farcical.
It's quite obvious something isn't working right within 'the way we do business'.

we currently experiencing the ultimate failure of neoliberalism and neoclassical economics, but we ve decided its best to ignore this, and blame others instead, im sure it ll resolve these issues!

Edgware

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we currently experiencing the ultimate failure of neoliberalism and neoclassical economics, but we ve decided its best to ignore this, and blame others instead, im sure it ll resolve these issues!

Oh its all that neoliberalism and neoclassicaism thats to blame.

BonnieSituation

Edgware wrote: »

You also have middle aged single men who probably never held down a job and living with a widowed parent. They are actually acting as carers, sorting the breakfast, getting messages etc. I know a number like that. Then they might spend the afternoon in the bookies and home to sort the evening meal. Between them and the elderly parent theres 500/600 a week going into the house. However if they werent there the parent might be in a care home at 2000 plus a week cost. So the long term unemoyed is a complex issue.

Bang on.

Imagine if we told that poor sod that he can't go to the bookies or into the local for a pinto because we only give him vouchers now as some were suggesting we do yesterday.

ELM327

Edgware wrote: »

Oh its all that neoliberalism and neoclassicaism thats to blame.

It always is from him, I wander.

James Brown

Edgware wrote: »

Oh its all that neoliberalism and neoclassicaism thats to blame.

They are ways of doing things so if it's not working why not point it out? Such things are given labels so you can speak to them.

Wanderer78

Edgware wrote: »

Oh its all that neoliberalism and neoclassicaism thats to blame.

ELM327 wrote: »

It always is from him, I wander.

...and again, we ve decided the best way of dealing with these issues is by ridiculing! once again, im sure it ll cause things to change!

KyussB

The_Conductor wrote: »

We've gotten the number of long term unemployed down to 4.17% (before the current mess)- which was considered to be 'full employment' as this core group tend to be unemployable for one reason or another. Hopefully in time the current cohort of unemployed will be encouraged into gainful employment (or education).

Once you get unemployment down to a certain level- you're simply expending resourses with no outcomes- if you continue to try to browbeat a small cohort into employment- it simply doesn't happen.

You don't understand what economic 'Full Employment' is - it excludes things like job churn, types of structural unemployment, and it glosses over central banks role in deliberately using unemployment to dampen inflation.

No economist out there would ever say that the unemployment level, represents people unwilling to work - and it requires extreme ignorance to suggest that.

The only way to even begin getting to the true number unwilling to work, is to provide a Job Guarantee program - and even that won't provide a true number, unless special efforts are made for every special group and minority that applies (a cookie-cutter job program, like constructing accommodation - while sorely needed and would be a core bit of work in the JG, being one of the biggest employment programs within it - will still leave a minority of people out).

KyussB

efanton wrote: »

If you believe in the idea of full employment, (very very close to 100%) then you also have to agree that employers cannot refuse to employ
certain people . Personally I think that's a very dangerous and slippery slope to think of going down.

Also you have to understand that 'unemployment' in Ireland has actually morphed into something that really does not mean people who do not work.
Until zero hours contracts were banned many of these workers were officially unemployed as they signed on regularly but declared the few hours they worked. Some businesses were taking advantage of this loop hole by deliberately employing multiple people for less than 16 hours a week rather than employ one person full time to avoid certain obligations that all employers have with regards full time employees.

Also there are a number of people who are receiving long term medical treatment (such as those on chemotherapy for cancer) but yet do not qualify for disability or other longer term benefits but instead remain on the live register as they are unemployable for obvious reasons.

Many people are full time carers for other family members with medical or mental disabilities but yet are are lumped in with the unemployed.
Do we consider these people full time employed, in which case you must also be advocating that these people are paid at least the minimum wage by the government, and are entitled to all the benefits that those who are employed are entitled to such as sick pay, paid holidays, and contributory pensions which they are currently no entitled to. Currently the government avoids considerable additional expense by not classing these people as employed.

Then you have those that have serious criminal records. Do they lie on their jobs applications and claim they have no criminal record, do we make it illegal for employers to enquire as to whether a prospective employee has a criminal record , or do we force employers to employ such people? As it stands most employers will ask this question and deliberately avoid employing them.

And finally we have those that are illiterate, or come from certain communities that are often discriminated against such as the travelling community. Although it is illegal to discriminate against them, as long as a employers can show that more than one person applied for a job, its easy for them to avoid any claim that they deliberately discriminated against a member of such communities. Do we change the laws so that this cant happen, or force large employers to have no choice but to employ these people as a small percentage of their workforce?

You need to be careful what you wish for.
There are a number of people that will never work by choice but they are a very small percentage. As for the rest that are currently 'long term unemployed' the cost to the state and society could be many times more if you really insisted on close to 100% employment.

You are arguing against trying to achieve permanent Full Employment through the Private Sector.

Nobody on the thread argued for that - of course that won't work, it hasn't been working for centuries.

That's why a Job Guarantee, with the government acting as 'employer of last resort' - hiring the unemployed when the Private Sector fails to - is the only possible way to do that.

The cost to the state and society is enormous, because we don't do that - the cost is in leaving people unemployed, that is a permanent loss to peoples lifetime income, and to GDP.

The_Conductor

KyussB wrote: »

You don't understand what economic 'Full Employment' is - it excludes things like job churn, types of structural unemployment, and it glosses over central banks role in deliberately using unemployment to dampen inflation.

No economist out there would ever say that the unemployment level, represents people unwilling to work - and it requires extreme ignorance to suggest that.

The only way to even begin getting to the true number unwilling to work, is to provide a Job Guarantee program - and even that won't provide a true number, unless special efforts are made for every special group and minority that applies (a cookie-cutter job program, like constructing accommodation - while sorely needed and would be a core bit of work in the JG, being one of the biggest employment programs within it - will still leave a minority of people out).

I never said they were unwilling to work- I said they were unemployable in regular jobs with regular employers (for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to mental health issues). I also said that Threshold and other organisations bleating on about homelessness (or unemployment) without acknowledging the underlying issues for a significant cohort of the longtermers- and advocating for better provision of mental health services and similar pertinent services (which could in many cases also include addiction treatments etc)- was completely pointless.

We have a hardcore of unemployed people (and homeless people) who are being shoehorned into schemes which do absolutely nothing to address their fundamental needs- by do-gooders who are preaching to them, and the media, that the issue is lack of opportunities, lack of accommodation, lack of jobs etc etc- when the core issue for many people- is getting off booze or drugs- or accessing mental health facilities.

Treating the symptoms- rather than the cause- is an exercise in futility. Of course the symptom also has to be treated- however, only treating the symptoms- and ignoring people's fundamental needs- is setting everyone- including organisations like Threshold, up for failure.

I'd throw a party if I heard that Threshold were putting a similar effort into advocating for mental health services that they are for short term beds in Dublin City Centre.

People have their priorities arseways.

Scoondal

I told Heather Humpreys that I went abroad for my holidays.
The response from her office was to send my address and PPS number through their unsecured e mail.
I am on a Covid19 payment of €131 per week.