Should I sign on Dole !?

studiorat

I don't think anybody does.

I've gone on holiday in a situation like that, home on Saturday only to arrive into a black hole on Monday morning thinking I was going into work. (well phone call Sunday night) Took me 3 months to sort it out. No help from SW either on account of my girlfriends salary, nice eh?

Until you are actually working you should be still looking, believe me. None of these situations are cut and dried. So if the OP continues to look for work they are therefore entitled to claim benefit.

It's a technicality yes, but a technicality in the claimants favor for a change. It's not un-ethical, it's doing nobody else out of money and it's legal. So if the guy applies for some jobs, what's the problem...

As for pulling one over and all that, some guy who want's to sign on for a few weeks is the least of the dept of finance's problems.

He should also enquire about claiming for the first month assuming he's paid by the month.

Boredatwork

dublindude wrote: »

No.

He finishes work on July 18. He doesn't start his new job until August 12, which is three weeks later. This is because he is going on a three week holiday.

There is no two months or sitting around looking for a job. There is simply a holiday between jobs.

Hi Dublin Dude,

I'm not going on a big elaborate 3 week foreign holiday, I am going on a two week holiday. When offered the job I did say to my new employers that I could come in on the 21st but only for 1 week as I had holidays booked for the following 2 weeks, they said it was pointless, (and I agreeed) so the start date of 11th Aug was decided upon, this is the day after I come back from my holidays, so I won't be out of work 1 day more than I have to.

I also explained that I had this holiday planned and flights paid for before I was made redundant, and until I had this job lined up I was concidering not going on the holiday.

I'm glad to see that you are in the minority of people that think I should not claim any benefits from my situation.

I think the government, and businesses in general, have fostered a culture of screwing the public out of as much money as they can, now I have found myself (not due to any of my actions) in a situation where I can recoup a minisule percentage of the money I have been screwed out of and I think not availing of this would be akin to whiping down my pants and bending over and asking to be shafted even harder !! :eek:

Thanks everyone that posted.

Good-day.

mcaul

Plusses & Minuses for all on this.

Normally when you take 2 weeks holiday you receive holiday pay from your employer.

The op is taking a holiday in his off time between 2 jobs, but if still employed by 1st comapny would be paid whilst on holidays.

I have a terrible dislike for spongers, but in this case, I don't see sponging as the OP is at a loss of income due to redundancy. The fact that this will b corrected in 3 weeks doesn't affect him. Unfortunatley mortgage / food / social life isn't free for people who have been made redundant.

So advice is. Tell SW office you have been made redunadant and that you have found a new job that starts in 3 weeks and you will receive the pay related social welfare for those 3 weeks.

Its not sponging, its not telling lies, its simply what you are entitled to for paying your prsi. (The i stands for Insurance - you ahve a valid claim)

Similar if you were out ill for 3 weeks, you fill in an illness form & get paid the relevant amount. - Unless the company pays while you're ill.

Eoin

Sorry, I'm a bit confused I think. You have the option of starting your job on the 21st of the month, but because you have chosen to go on holidays you are not starting for another three weeks. Is it this three weeks you think you should get money for?

Sephiroth_dude

dublindude wrote: »

Anyway, we could talk about this all day.

I don't think it is right to claim the dole when you don't need it or don't qualify for it.

Other people disagree.

That's fine.

I won't change your mind, you won't change my mind.

End of story.

Im being laid off work temporarily till september,i will be signing on for the job seekers benefit,am I a sponger?In your opinion do I qualify for it?

AARRRGH

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

Im being laid off work temporarily till september,i will be signing on for the job seekers benefit,am I a sponger?In your opinion do I qualify for it?

No I don't think you're a sponger, because you have no choice in the matter.

gixerfixer

Nickibaby* wrote: »

This thread is unbeleivable :rolleyes:

OP is not starting a job until the 11th - agreed with his hopefully new employer that this will be the date he starts on. He has lost his job through no fault of his own he was made REDUNDANT. There are so many people who have no intentions of getting a job, while the OP is only going to be out of work for 3 weeks, what he does in those 3 weeks shouldn't be an issue.

He has paid his taxes, and will continue to do so, he is entitled.... some people are so begrudging when things work out for people :rolleyes:

Well put.There is so many begrudgers in Ireland it's unreal.I have actually heard of people who would prefer if a family that has fallen between the cracks in society where left out on the street rather than get a house through the social housing programmes.These are the same kind of people who begrudge the OP from getting the dole even though he has paid his taxes and PRSI.Unbelievable really.

AARRRGH

It's not begrudgery. Begrudgery is when you are envious of someone who has something, such as success. I would never begrudge a successful person.

Trying to connect my opinion (I don't like sponging) with people getting enjoyment out of families living homeless on the street is absolutely ridiculous.

I've said this a million times already, but the dole is not for people who choose to go on holidays rather than start a job.

nesf

I don't see the ethical problem here. He won't be receiving any pay or doing nixers or whatever during the three weeks. Sure he'll be on holidays but he has been paying his PRSI and will be paying it again after three weeks. The dole is there to give people an income between jobs, I don't see the difference between a person going on holidays for three weeks or a person sitting on their ass at home for three weeks between jobs to be honest.

Bluetonic

Really, I think everything has been covered, this thread should be left to die.

studiorat

The holiday in question was booked 9 mths previous.

Prolly better in Philosophy since so many seem it to be a question of ethics...

Newaglish

mcaul wrote: »

Plusses & Minuses for all on this.

Normally when you take 2 weeks holiday you receive holiday pay from your employer.

The op is taking a holiday in his off time between 2 jobs, but if still employed by 1st comapny would be paid whilst on holidays.

I have a terrible dislike for spongers, but in this case, I don't see sponging as the OP is at a loss of income due to redundancy. The fact that this will b corrected in 3 weeks doesn't affect him. Unfortunatley mortgage / food / social life isn't free for people who have been made redundant.

If the OP has been made redundant, they will receive all accrued holiday pay that they have built up, as part of their redundancy package. They ARE being paid for this time off in exactly the same way that if they still had a job.

I really can't stand the "I pay my taxes" argument either.

I pay my taxes but:

I shouldn't get child benefit - I don't have children
I shouldn't get old age non-cont. pension - I am not over 65
I shouldn't get a 3rd level grant - I am a graduate, not a student
I shouldn't get disability allowance - I am not disabled
I shouldn't get jobseekers allowance - I am not seeking work. Neither is the OP

Bluetonic

Newaglish wrote: »

They ARE being paid for this time off in exactly the same way that if they still had a job.

Really it's all been covered but can I suggest a little education for yourself. It would go a long way.

Newaglish

Bluetonic wrote: »

Really it's all been covered but can I suggest a little education for yourself. It would go a long way.

Please elaborate? Are you saying that employees are not entitled to arrears of holiday pay on redundancy?

I may be mistaken as I work specifically in the area of redundancies in the case of insolvency, where arrears of holiday are paid to the employee and I assumed it would be the same in a regular redundancy case.

PS. Attack the post, not the poster.