Reduce unemployment benefit

Highsider

Should be made to work for their dole. End of story. Plenty of roads need fixing,schools need building,parks need cleaning etc...why not get people on the dole to help with the building of the metro to the airport here in Dublin. I know several people on the dole who would work for the money they are getting because it would help them pass the time.

easyeason3

Highsider wrote: »

Should be made to work for their dole. End of story. Plenty of roads need fixing,schools need building,parks need cleaning etc...why not get people on the dole to help with the building of the metro to the airport here in Dublin. I know several people on the dole who would work for the money they are getting because it would help them pass the time.

Yep. If nothing else it will sort the leeches from genuine people who have been affected by the recession.
While I wouldn't be any good at heavy labour, I' be able to paint, clean etc.
This is something the government should give serious thought to.

Sage'sMama

Highsider wrote: »

Should be made to work for their dole. End of story. Plenty of roads need fixing,schools need building,parks need cleaning etc...why not get people on the dole to help with the building of the metro to the airport here in Dublin. I know several people on the dole who would work for the money they are getting because it would help them pass the time.

So what will happen to the people who work in these jobs already won't they just end up on the eh....dole????

ronbyrne2005

Sage'sMama wrote: »

So what will happen to the people who work in these jobs already won't they just end up on the eh....dole????

Theres plenty of these types of jobs that no one is employed to do and therefore people wouldnt be out of work.

easyeason3

Sage'sMama wrote: »

So what will happen to the people who work in these jobs already won't they just end up on the eh....dole????

The construction industry probably has the highest number of members who are now unemployed so the only people who would be really losing out would be huge construction companies who have enough pennies in the bank already.
Let's not forget that the government is already bailing banks out which these huge construction companies have helped cripple.
It's about the ordinary Joe on the street who was either working for someone or had a small business which has now gone bust.
In any case if something like the above mentioned was implemented a certain amount of it would need to be done by a larger company.

ShooterSF

Ok, make them work. I might agree with that in areas like grafitti or forced "volunteer" like meals on wheels etc. However how many hours do you expect people to work while also looking for a job? Who is going to supervise them? I assume you don't mean people on benefit should have to do this "labour"?

easyeason3

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok, make them work. I might agree with that in areas like grafitti or forced "volunteer" like meals on wheels etc. However how many hours do you expect people to work while also looking for a job? Who is going to supervise them? I assume you don't mean people on benefit should have to do this "labour"?

A three day week wouldn't be asking a whole lot from anyone.
Assuming the right people are selected then little or no supervision would be required, but as there are plenty of foremen also signing on they would have the experience of delegating jobs as well as overseeing health & safety.
It's all about giving people direction as one of the hardest things about being unemployed is having so much free time. I know if I was asked to work somewhere for free in the morning I'd jump at the chance.
Also a load of apprentices have been laid off, so it would be ideal for them to continue their training in between college.

ShooterSF

easyeason3 wrote: »

A three day week wouldn't be asking a whole lot from anyone.
Assuming the right people are selected then little or no supervision would be required, but as there are plenty of foremen also signing on they would have the experience of delegating jobs as well as overseeing health & safety.
It's all about giving people direction as one of the hardest things about being unemployed is having so much free time. I know if I was asked to work somewhere for free in the morning I'd jump at the chance.
Also a load of apprentices have been laid off, so it would be ideal for them to continue their training in between college.

But if you don't have paid supervisors then the spongers will just dodge it any way. Also for those that aren;t laid off from construction do they get put through the required health & safety courses? (Thinking compo claims..) See you might be happy to work in the morning but the few that are frauding the system will still find a way around it unless it's regulated.

Also 3 day week = 24 hours = 207.60 (legal minimum wage) and 400,000 (estimate of number on dole) x 24 = 9.6 million hours to delegate If you use people on social to delegate who picks who delegates?

I'm just offering real life problems to the theory to see how practical it is.

easyeason3

ShooterSF wrote: »

But if you don't have paid supervisors then the spongers will just dodge it any way. Also for those that aren;t laid off from construction do they get put through the required health & safety courses? (Thinking compo claims..) See you might be happy to work in the morning but the few that are frauding the system will still find a way around it unless it's regulated.

Also 3 day week = 24 hours = 207.60 (legal minimum wage) and 400,000 (estimate of number on dole) x 24 = 9.6 million hours to delegate If you use people on social to delegate who picks who delegates?

I'm just offering real life problems to the theory to see how practical it is.

Fas do health & safety courses which are free to anyone on the dole, so if anyone was serious about it then they would have no problem in doing the course. Compo claims will happen regardless but I'm sure if something was set up then the relevant insurance could be organised for it. Construction companies have managed to do it so I don't see it being too much of a problem.

As I said already there are enough foremen signing on who have the expertise in running a site. If they're not willing to do it then get someone in from fas or one of the government departments.

What do you think?

thebullkf

Novella wrote: »

Damn right it should be reduced! No one deserves that amount of money for doing sweet **** all. The only people who don't agree with this are the one's claiming it. I think it's fair enough if you've just been made redundant or whatever but for those who've never worked, those people should get zilch! Oh, and if you have kids, that is your problem. I'm sorry but if you couldn't afford them, you shouldn't have had them.

yeah nice one novella...obviously you're childless....... and bitter by the sounds of it,by your reasoning if your folks were subject to your tunnel vision you'd have had a poor childhood yourself... constructive criticism anyone??

chocgirl

Definitely think it has to be reduced for those without children. Think there should be differentiation between people who have never worked and those who have lost their jobs as well. Unfortunately reducing it for people with children is tricky, kids will suffer but people need to realise it is not up to the state to raise their children at the same time.

Raze_them_all

Highsider wrote: »

Should be made to work for their dole. End of story. Plenty of roads need fixing,schools need building,parks need cleaning etc...why not get people on the dole to help with the building of the metro to the airport here in Dublin. I know several people on the dole who would work for the money they are getting because it would help them pass the time.

Build schools your looking at blockies, sparkies, chippies, plumbers....basically the contruction sector again...thats all your really employing...Not that I'd complain I'd gladly go back on a site

easyeason3 wrote: »

A three day week wouldn't be asking a whole lot from anyone.
Assuming the right people are selected then little or no supervision would be required, quote]
If your making people work for the dole and only picking the right people the people who lost their jobs would be back in work and the dole jockeys would still be on the dole

thebullkf

chocgirl wrote: »

Definitely think it has to be reduced for those without children. Think there should be differentiation between people who have never worked and those who have lost their jobs as well. Unfortunately reducing it for people with children is tricky, kids will suffer but people need to realise it is not up to the state to raise their children at the same time.

don't think people expect the state to raise their kids..its an unfortunate tag some have to bear...we all have horror stories,drink,drugs etc...they're a minority (hopefully).. minimum wage should be raised to encourage people to return to work...same people that made a killing during the boom are using the recession to offer minimum wage-an outrage!
assistant manager jobs for €12 p.h.
Truck drivers €12.50 an hour.
why the [EMAIL="F@$k"]F@$k[/EMAIL] would you work shift(with kids maybe) possibly around the country for 40hrs a week for an extra 120-160€ ????
when you can raise your family at home?
need to reward workers-catch the cheats-punish people where it hurts em most. i.e. in the pocket.
We all know "doler's" who are in the pub 3 times a week,doing nixers,saying their not living with their partners-claiming rent allowence etc etc etc-they're the maggots draining our economy (among others)..people need to start reporting their neighbours and family members....
for the record.:
i''ve just been made redundant.
14 years employed(since school)
Entitled to dole!!!!
mortgage
family
bills
bills
bills
!!!!
Have applied for over 100 diverse jobs.
4 interviews
0 offers:eek:
Professionally qualified etc
sadly a familiar story.

amacachi

I've said it before and I'll say it again, cut the headline allowance for a single person and dependent adults, but increase the amount given per child. Saves a bit on the single and childless people, without obliterating low income families. Whatever about wasters etc., the kids shouldn't be punished.
Then the lot should be decreased year by year in line with deflation if it continues.

amacachi

thebullkf wrote: »

don't think people expect the state to raise their kids..its an unfortunate tag some have to bear...we all have horror stories,drink,drugs etc...they're a minority (hopefully).. minimum wage should be raised to encourage people to return to work...same people that made a killing during the boom are using the recession to offer minimum wage-an outrage!

Trouble with that is that it increases wages and prices and will make us even less competitive. Increasing wages and prices will leave the unemployed far worse off and there'll be cries to improve their incomes, leaving us where we are now except we'll be constantly lowering our chances to be competitive internationally.

Boskowski

A lot of people are on about how it couldn't possibly be reduced what with the lifestyle and the mortgage and all that. But I think they have it all wrong. When on social welfare (and please note I'm not talking recently unemployed, I'm talking longterm unemployment, single parent benefit etc) you are not meant to be talking lifestyle, house and cars and such things. As much as it may hurt and as much as these things seem to be a given they are meant for people who work for a living. Social welfare means you should just about get by. Social welfare means not getting 'the best' for your daughter as tough as it may seem. When you're getting pregnant at the age of 19 in an unstable relationship you're not meant to be kept a comfortable position by the social welfare system. I pity the little child, but you've been stupid, irresponsible and you're supposed to have a tough time over it, you're not supposed to be put into a cushy arrangement.

maxxie

op is a nazi

Novella

thebullkf wrote: »

yeah nice one novella...obviously you're childless....... and bitter by the sounds of it,by your reasoning if your folks were subject to your tunnel vision you'd have had a poor childhood yourself... constructive criticism anyone??

I wouldn't have had a poor childhood because both of my parents worked and were financially stable before they had me. Yes, I am childless and I plan to stay that way until I can afford to have one. Of course it is a persons own problem if they have a family, they decided to do so, so they should live with the consequences.