Dole holidays curtailed

Dempo1

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

200 until a confirmation check done, then zero or full restoration

Sillyness, let me try and explain one more time.

Not everyone is still getting €350, by the departments own reckoning up to 12% mainly part time employee's, if you look at self employed and there's separate threads on this, a large percentage have seen payment cut.

But the most important issue with reducing or indeed stopping payment is its been proven to be unconstitutional, typically Leo shoots his mouth off, a mad scramble insues to change wording on websites but of course the actual ministerial order makes NO MENTION OF PAYMENTS BEING AFFECTED,

I suspect those who had payment stopped have serious grounds for appeal and potentially compensation and from what's being discussed a crossed the Airways this morning legal experts saying government on shakey ground here.

Dempo1

blanch152 wrote: »

Public servants have also been stopped going on holidays as well, because they have been told that they need to take unpaid leave for the quarantine period which will cost them money.

It is harsh but correct from a public health point of view. I have no sympathy for the bleating of the entitlement class.

Now now, let's not throw well paid and pensioned public servents into this debate, are you seriously suggesting a unionised public servant will have wages stopped, I think not, look at the issue in hand, PUP Recipients being discriminated against and it now appears unconstitutionally.

Absolutely agree no unnecessary travel, but equal rules for everyone

Fann Linn

Dempo1 wrote: »

Now now, let's not throw well paid and pensioned public servents into this debate, are you seriously suggesting a unionised public servant will have wages stopped, I think not, look at the issue in hand, PUP Recipients being discriminated against and it now appears unconstitutionally.

Absolutely agree no unnecessary travel, but equal rules for everyone

Blanch is right on this one! I'm a PS and have received at least 3 emails from my boss stating that if I go abroad I've to quarantine for 14 days at my own expense unless I've got holidays to cover same.

runawaybishop

Dempo1 wrote: »

But the most important issue with reducing or indeed stopping payment is its been proven to be unconstitutional, typically Leo shoots his mouth off, a mad scramble insues to change wording on websites but of course the actual ministerial order makes NO MENTION OF PAYMENTS BEING AFFECTED,

I suspect those who had payment stopped have serious grounds for appeal and potentially compensation and from what's being discussed a crossed the Airways this morning legal experts saying government on shakey ground here.

Its not unconstitutional to only make payments available to people in the state, where are you getting this from?

Dempo1

Dear God, Heather Humphries digging a bigger hole this morning on news talk, stating and I quote, 2012 law permits social welfare payments to be cut. Of course what Heather has forgotten, the Legislation re PUP is actually only being debated today to put it under statutory footing. Further as I've stated, the sneaky ministerial order she signed 2 weeks ago is just that an order, temporary guidence and if that weren't bad enough, her order made NO MENTION of anyone's payment being affected by travelling.

To add insult to injury, she further states we don't pay people living abroad? Just a bizzare statement, has she forgotten pensions to those who live say in Spain in winter months etc, indeed is she aware of SW entitlements being transferable across THE EU.

Finally the PUP is a distinct payment not necessarily treated under normal SW legislation, it is not means tested and its entlement requirements seem to be managed by the stroke of a website managers keyboard

Just shocking incompetence

Dempo1

runawaybishop wrote: »

Its not unconstitutional to only make payments available to people in the state, where are you getting this from?

Unconstitutional in the sense they've stopped a statutory payment with ZERO LEGISLATION to back up such a decision, take a look at the ministerial order, not a mention of payments being cut or worse still stopped, indeed just for the record, the actual full legislation re THE PUP is only being debated today.

blanch152

Dempo1 wrote: »

Now now, let's not throw well paid and pensioned public servents into this debate, are you seriously suggesting a unionised public servant will have wages stopped, I think not, look at the issue in hand, PUP Recipients being discriminated against and it now appears unconstitutionally.

Absolutely agree no unnecessary travel, but equal rules for everyone

https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/79973/6cbfabcd-af64-4baf-9a9a-7d8bcfc564f4.pdf#page=null

"The Irish authorities require anyone coming into Ireland, apart from Northern Ireland, to restrict their movementsfor 14 days.Responsibility to provide for the period of restricted movementarising from non-essential travel overseas is a matter for each individual employee. Where there is an intention to undertake non-essential travel overseas,all employees must make provision by way of an annual leave or unpaid leave application for the additional period of restricted movement, in line with the normal rules applying in the relevant sector.The requirement that employees advise their employer of travel abroad is necessary for the protection of public health. "


That applies to cleaners, caretakers and clerical officers, some of whom are getting less than the Covid payment.

PUP recipients are not being discriminated against, as it applies to a lot of different social welfare payments. As I said, this is a public health issue, the same people who have been bleating about Americans coming into the country are crying and whinging about the PUP payment being stopped.

blanch152

Dempo1 wrote: »

Dear God, Heather Humphries digging a bigger hole this morning on news talk, stating and I quote, 2012 law permits social welfare payments to be cut. Of course what Heather has forgotten, the Legislation re PUP is actually only being debated today to put it under statutory footing. Further as I've stated, the sneaky ministerial order she signed 2 weeks ago is just that an order, temporary guidence and if that weren't bad enough, her order made NO MENTION of anyone's payment being affected by travelling.

To add insult to injury, she further states we don't pay people living abroad? Just a bizzare statement, has she forgotten pensions to those who live say in Spain in winter months etc, indeed is she aware of SW entitlements being transferable across THE EU.

Finally the PUP is a distinct payment not necessarily treated under normal SW legislation, it is not means tested and its entlement requirements seem to be managed by the stroke of a website managers keyboard

Just shocking incompetence

If it is only being debated today to put it on statutory footing, they could easily include a clause that anyone receiving a PUP who posts on boards could have it deducted, or anyone who has green eyes could have it deducted, let alone those who travel abroad. No problem then.

Dempo1

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/79973/6cbfabcd-af64-4baf-9a9a-7d8bcfc564f4.pdf#page=null

"The Irish authorities require anyone coming into Ireland, apart from Northern Ireland, to restrict their movementsfor 14 days.Responsibility to provide for the period of restricted movementarising from non-essential travel overseas is a matter for each individual employee. Where there is an intention to undertake non-essential travel overseas,all employees must make provision by way of an annual leave or unpaid leave application for the additional period of restricted movement, in line with the normal rules applying in the relevant sector.The requirement that employees advise their employer of travel abroad is necessary for the protection of public health. "


That applies to cleaners, caretakers and clerical officers, some of whom are getting less than the Covid payment.

PUP recipients are not being discriminated against, as it applies to a lot of different social welfare payments. As I said, this is a public health issue, the same people who have been bleating about Americans coming into the country are crying and whinging about the PUP payment being stopped.

Please highlight the bit we're it states SW payments and the Distinct PUP payment will be stopped?????, again, I agree about travel restrictions but not blatant discrimination

seamus

Dempo1 wrote: »

But the most important issue with reducing or indeed stopping payment is its been proven to be unconstitutional

No it hasn't.

There are questions about whether stopping someone's welfare payments for travelling, amounts to denying them the right to travel, but it's an open one.

Personally have no issue with the concept that if you're on any form of temporary needs allowance (as opposed to disability benefit, etc), that your right to leave the state should be limited. And in the context of PUP and the situation we find ourselves in at the moment, it's more than a little farcical that someone could claim an emergency pandemic payment and then go off on a foreign holiday.

"Am I just supposed to stay home and lose my deposit?". Yes, Karen. Yes you are.

Though whatever genius in the DoSP thought that sending people in hi-vis jackets to Dublin Airport was a good idea, has probably found themselves on a career-limiting path at this stage.
Would have made far more sense to interview people on the way back in and quietly pull them that way.

Dempo1

Fann Linn wrote: »

Blanch is right on this one! I'm a PS and have received at least 3 emails from my boss stating that if I go abroad I've to quarantine for 14 days at my own expense unless I've got holidays to cover same.

Again missing the point, I don't agree anyone should be penalised in the way Blanch sets out and I apologise if I came across unreasonable re public servants but I am compl focused on the point being debated, blanket discrimination of PUP recepients all of whom have been put on this payment because of lockdown and closed businesses.

runawaybishop

Dempo1 wrote: »

Again missing the point, I don't agree anyone should be penalised in the way Blanch sets out and I apologise if I came across unreasonable re public servants but I am compl focused on the point being debated, blanket discrimination of PUP recepients all of whom have been put on this payment because of lockdown and closed businesses.

How is it discriminatory exactly, many SW payments state you must be in the country to get them.

is_that_so

Dempo1 wrote: »

Unconstitutional in the sense they've stopped a statutory payment with ZERO LEGISLATION to back up such a decision, take a look at the ministerial order, not a mention of payments being cut or worse still stopped, indeed just for the record, the actual full legislation re THE PUP is only being debated today.

Under which article of the Constitution exactly? It's a temporary payment which comes with rules and regulations. Even if it's cut when they come back they can apply for standard JSA/JSB. Those two also have rules about holidays BTW.

ChelseaRentBoy

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its loads of people on this thread that dont like people on the dole.

It's not just this thread it's the site in general. People on social welfare are viewed upon as scum who all have 2020 cars in the drive way and go on holidays at least twice a year. Iv'e been on welfare before for 8 months and 2 years on another occasion and i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

TomTomTim

runawaybishop wrote: »

The travel advisory is irrelevant and that lad hasnt a clue. You must be in the state to get pup. Many of our welfare payments have this clause.

Maybe that's the case now, but it wasn't until recently, which is the point.

wrote:

In general you can take up to 2 weeks holidays each year and have your social welfare payment paid. However you must always contact your local Intreo Centre, Social Welfare Branch Office or your Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection (DEASP) representative (formerly known as the Community Welfare Officer) to check your entitlements before planning or taking holidays. If you plan to take longer holidays or to be abroad for an extended period your social welfare payment may not be paid.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/claiming_a_social_welfare_payment/going_abroad_and_social_welfare_payments.html

It's simply the fact that they are changing general standards to suit themselves which I have an issue with. If this was always their stance then fine, but it wasn't for years.

blanch152

Dempo1 wrote: »

Again missing the point, I don't agree anyone should be penalised in the way Blanch sets out and I apologise if I came across unreasonable re public servants but I am compl focused on the point being debated, blanket discrimination of PUP recepients all of whom have been put on this payment because of lockdown and closed businesses.

Do you not understand that because public servants are facing the same restrictions, that it is not discrimination!!!!!

Discrimination is when one group is singled out unfairly. If the government is applying similar restrictions to public servants as well as PUP recipients and job-seekers allowance and 50-60 other social welfare payments, then there is no discrimination!!!!!

It is actually more unfair that public servants are being denied the chance to go on holidays because most of them - nurses, doctors, care assistants, gardai, firemen, army, even teachers - put their lives at risk or worked beyond their normal arrangements durign the pandemic while the PUP recipients got to sit at home safely.

This is a clear example of the entitlement culture gone mad when a small minority of the PUP recipients can't accept what the rest of us have had to - that holidays shouldn't be taken. They want to put the rest of us at risk, and those of us who are still paying taxes don't deserve to be put at risk like that.

ChelseaRentBoy

runawaybishop wrote: »

Those lunatics.

Pup payments are for those genuinely unable to work and seeking work. You arent seeking work lying on a lounger in Spain.

Why not? You can work remotely from anywhere with ease if you wish.

meeeeh

seamus wrote: »

No it hasn't.

There are questions about whether stopping someone's welfare payments for travelling, amounts to denying them the right to travel, but it's an open one.

Personally have no issue with the concept that if you're on any form of temporary needs allowance (as opposed to disability benefit, etc), that your right to leave the state should be limited. And in the context of PUP and the situation we find ourselves in at the moment, it's more than a little farcical that someone could claim an emergency pandemic payment and then go off on a foreign holiday.

"Am I just supposed to stay home and lose my deposit?". Yes, Karen. Yes you are.

Though whatever genius in the DoSP thought that sending people in hi-vis jackets to Dublin Airport was a good idea, has probably found themselves on a career-limiting path at this stage.
Would have made far more sense to interview people on the way back in and quietly pull them that way.

I think the majority of people whose payment was cancelled were leaving the country. You can't check on return because then you miss everyone leaving for good.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/most-who-had-pup-cut-off-were-leaving-country-permanently-says-government-1.4315556?mode=amp

Anyway it's a lot of fuss for nothing. It would be ridiculous if government was paying people to do exactly what they are advising them not to do.

blanch152

TomTomTim wrote: »

Maybe that's the case now, but it wasn't until recently, which is the point.


https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/claiming_a_social_welfare_payment/going_abroad_and_social_welfare_payments.html

It's simply the fact that they are changing general standards to suit themselves which I have an issue with. If this was always their stance then fine, but it wasn't for years.

They are changing general standards because there is a public health emergency - denying a lad sitting on his arse a holiday is a small measure compared to what the population has had to put up with.

runawaybishop

TomTomTim wrote: »

Maybe that's the case now, but it wasn't until recently, which is the point.


https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/claiming_a_social_welfare_payment/going_abroad_and_social_welfare_payments.html

It's simply the fact that they are changing general standards to suit themselves which I have an issue with. If this was always their stance then fine, but it wasn't for years.

You always had to be in the country for pup.

blanch152

ChelseaRentBoy wrote: »

It's not just this thread it's the site in general. People on social welfare are viewed upon as scum who all have 2020 cars in the drive way and go on holidays at least twice a year. Iv'e been on welfare before for 8 months and 2 years on another occasion and i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

In this particular situation, the only people wanting to go on holidays and able to get the time and money to go on holidays are social welfare recipients, so any criticism is fully deserved.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

It is harsh but correct from a public health point of view. I have no sympathy for the bleating of the entitlement class.

Why would you call all the people who one day after work were watching the news to be told they were no longer allowed go to work “the entitlement class”?

That’s nasty.

Dempo1

runawaybishop wrote: »

How is it discriminatory exactly, many SW payments state you must be in the country to get them.

Just to remind you, previously SW recepients allowed two weeks holiday, No such clarity on PUP recepients, the issue at hand is what happened at airports recently. I'm not for a second suggesting SW payments should be paid to those living abroad for extended periods. Again, we need to seperate how the PUP was introduced and requirements to avail of same and more recently the shockingly bad handling of the new clause related to travel which again, makes no mention of payments being stopped.

If it had been reasonablly flagged, announced, explained fine, but this was an abruptly put together ministerial order with no warning or notifications, it has since been proven that inf was only updated on gov websites after Leo's silly comments on Sunday

Former Former

ChelseaRentBoy wrote: »

It's not just this thread it's the site in general. People on social welfare are viewed upon as scum who all have 2020 cars in the drive way and go on holidays at least twice a year. Iv'e been on welfare before for 8 months and 2 years on another occasion and i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Sooo, should you not be even more outraged than the rest of us by people claiming benefits to which they are not entitled, and so giving the wider community of welfare recipients a bad rep?

TomTomTim

blanch152 wrote: »

They are changing general standards because there is a public health emergency - denying a lad sitting on his arse a holiday is a small measure compared to what the population has had to put up with.

My problem is that they are attaching a penalty to advise, advise should not come with a penalty, it's goes against the very nature of an advisory policy. If they want it to be legally consistent they need to make it illegal to leave the country, otherwise it's a legal mess.

seamus

meeeeh wrote: »

I think the majority of people whose payment was cancelled were leaving the country. You can't check on return because then you miss everyone leaving for good.

Ah ffs.

This is all fuss over nothing then. Some people will whinge about anything.

Dempo1

seamus wrote: »

No it hasn't.

There are questions about whether stopping someone's welfare payments for travelling, amounts to denying them the right to travel, but it's an open one.

Personally have no issue with the concept that if you're on any form of temporary needs allowance (as opposed to disability benefit, etc), that your right to leave the state should be limited. And in the context of PUP and the situation we find ourselves in at the moment, it's more than a little farcical that someone could claim an emergency pandemic payment and then go off on a foreign holiday.

"Am I just supposed to stay home and lose my deposit?". Yes, Karen. Yes you are.

Though whatever genius in the DoSP thought that sending people in hi-vis jackets to Dublin Airport was a good idea, has probably found themselves on a career-limiting path at this stage.
Would have made far more sense to interview people on the way back in and quietly pull them that way.

So are you suggesting an arbitrary decision made without any approved legislation is not unconstitutional, Im not quite sure that's how Irish law works and at least 3 legal experts this morning agreed this morning that the decision is on constitunally shaking ground. But that aside, I again mention, the ministerial order made no reference to PUP payment being stopped or affected in any way.

dotsman

yrreg0850 wrote: »

By anybody going on unnecessary foreign , they are likely to cause more trouble for the underpaid front line workers . who probably cannot afford either the time or the cost.

What about the overpaid front line workers?

And why does your post read like it is from a tabloid?

Dempo1

TomTomTim wrote: »

My problem is that they are attaching a penalty to advise, advise should not come with a penalty, it's goes against the very nature of an advisory policy. If they want it to be legally consistent they need to make it illegal to leave the country, otherwise it's a legal mess.

Yes, agreed and well put

bcklschaps

Whilst I have no problems with people on Social Welfare/Covid payments etc. being docked money if they leave the state.... It seems to have been a hastily thought out measure (badly communicated and maybe legally challengeable) ....but it seems to be symptomatic of this chaotic new Government.