Should the dole be cut for long termers?

sollar

The OECD have recommended that social welfare should be cut for those on it long term. They say -
"Ireland is one of the few countries not to reduce unemployment benefits when people fail to find employment".

However, Joan Burton has said she does not intend to follow this advice, instead she says - "that reforming the social welfare system and employment training was a better way to get people off the dole".

I think social welfare should start off at a decent level but reduce over the medium to long term as an incentive to return to work. Perhaps begin to reduce it after 18 months to 2 years (reduce the time frame when the ecomony picks up to 6 months to 1 year). I believe that many people on the dole over 2 years have learned to adjust their life to live on it and this can be a disincentive to return to work.

What do people think should be done?

RichardAnd

I think we should be wary of saying that reducing the dole will incentivise people back to work. What's keeping many on the dole is the lack of jobs, not the "joy" of getting state aid.

later12

Personally, I would do three things in relation to unemployment benefits.

Yes, I would probably cut it, although it is hard to put an exact figure on what the economy and the unemployed can take, and I am not going to try. It wouldn't be a particularly drastic cut.

Far more important would be these measures:
(1) Increase the graduate internship programme for the unemployed
(2) progressively wean people off unemployment assistance when they do find work. At present, and with the possibility of JLC reform (see Duffy Walsh report) I don't think the incentive to find employment and to leave benefits is adequate, and there is a danger of some people falling into a long term unemployment trap, which would be tragic for a state with our age profile (median age approx 34) and the age profile of the long term unemployed.

sollar

RichardAnd wrote: »

I think we should be wary of saying that reducing the dole will incentivise people back to work. What's keeping many on the dole is the lack of jobs, not the "joy" of getting state aid.

Most other EU countries seem to operate this way though according to the OECD

GSF

RichardAnd wrote: »

I think we should be wary of saying that reducing the dole will incentivise people back to work. What's keeping many on the dole is the lack of jobs, not the "joy" of getting state aid.

When we had "full employment" we still had 150k on the dole. So its not lack of jobs per se, its the inability of a large cohort of people to fill the jobs available.

Why so? Probably a range of factors such as
- poor skills, education
- too long out of the job market
- unwilling/ unable to move to where the jobs are

LeeHoffmann

Most other EU countries seem to operate this way though according to the OECD

do they do it German-style where people are forced to work for E1 an hour?

Wheelie King

We need to increase the minimum wage to at least 10e an hour and reduce social payments by 30% across the board. People need to be encouraged back into employment not forced on to the street.

Wheelie King

GSF wrote: »

When we had "full employment" we still had 150k on the dole. So its not lack of jobs per se, its the inability of a large cohort of people to fill the jobs available.

Why so? Probably a range of factors such as
- poor skills, education
- too long out of the job market
- unwilling/ unable to move to where the jobs are

Don't forget a lot was dependent on the area you lived in. I know for a fact a lot of employers would'nt hire people from a certain area or even if they had a certain accent.

Geuze

Some int'l comparisons (2007 OECD data):

NB: UI = JSB

AUSTRIA

9m of UI at 55% of former net wage, max 14750 pa

BELGIUM

UI paid with no time limit, 60 / 50% of former gross wage

No dole, as UI lasts forever

DENMARK

UI for 2yrs at 90% of former wages, max 24k pa

JSA / dole = none in Denmark

FRANCE

UI paid for 23 months at 57-75% of former wages.

JSA = 100 pw

GERMANY

UI paid for 12m at 60% of wages

JSA = 359pm = 83pw

USA

UI paid for 26-99 weeks at 50% of wages, up to 450 USD pw.

TheInquisitor

Wheelie King wrote: »

We need to increase the minimum wage to at least 10e an hour and reduce social payments by 30% across the board. People need to be encouraged back into employment not forced on to the street.

Are you mad? The minimum wage is already way higher than The Uk's and you want to make it even higher? There won't be any jobs left in the country with all the buinesses shutting down if you had your way.

There are 2 countries in all of europe that have a higher minimum wage than us. Thats Luxembourg and Monaco.

How can you possibly justify increasing the minimum wage!?

Chnandler Bong

Geuze wrote: »

Some int'l comparisons (2007 OECD data):

NB: UI = JSB

AUSTRIA

9m of UI at 55% of former net wage, max 14750 pa

BELGIUM

UI paid with no time limit, 60 / 50% of former gross wage

No dole, as UI lasts forever

DENMARK

UI for 2yrs at 90% of former wages, max 24k pa

JSA / dole = none in Denmark

FRANCE

UI paid for 23 months at 57-75% of former wages.

JSA = 100 pw

GERMANY

UI paid for 12m at 60% of wages

JSA = 359pm = 83pw

USA

UI paid for 26-99 weeks at 50% of wages, up to 450 USD pw.

I'm moving to Denmark:D

later12

GSF wrote: »

When we had "full employment" we still had 150k on the dole.

What is it with the dodgy statistics this lunchtime? No we didn't. I think you are confusing live resigster figures with the dole, not a helpful association.

Devi

Although I agree that social welfare is too high in regards to minimum wage, and in theory it makes sense to cut the dole after a period of time, however it only makes sense when there are a sufficient amount of jobs. In reality in this country now, it would lead to a lot of poverty because at the end of the day there ant 450k jobs. Let’s say there is 25k (pulled out of thin air) open positions atm, that will still leave 425k without any income. Now can you imagine a country where you have 425k people without any income? It would be a disaster. We are on a downward spiral atm, doing something like that would just feed into it. We would be a third world country in no time.

Devi

Chnandler Bong wrote: »

I'm moving to Denmark:D

Yea but ye wana see the amount of tax they pay in Denmark.

RichardAnd

Devi wrote: »

Yea but ye wana see the amount of tax they pay in Denmark.

Yeah but the women more than make up for it

Devi

RichardAnd wrote: »

Yeah but the women more than make up for it

Do ye think so, been there a few times and have to say wasnt impressed. Sweeden now thats a differant story.

RichardAnd

Devi wrote: »

Do ye think so, been there a few times and have to say wasnt impressed. Sweeden now thats a differant story.

Never been to sweden. Used to be very good friends with a Danish girl though and I have little bad to say about her

She spoke english better than most Irish people too!

careca11

GSF wrote: »

When we had "full employment" we still had 150k on the dole. So its not lack of jobs per se, its the inability of a large cohort of people to fill the jobs available.

Why so? - unwilling = the leeches ,
this section of unemployed people should be hit the hardest ,
never had a job , never wanted a job.

remember = you get what you give .
so why should these people get everything and give nothing (these are the people who should be made work for their benefits , clean streets, graifitti, cut hedges/ditches/tree's , road repairs etc (that would in turn save the county council's some money ...enabling them to reduce rent/rates on commerical premises ,
thus attracting more businesses = more employment = more tax revenue

also the gov should cut the corporation tax to 10% , that would for sure attract plenty of foreign investment.........................these small steps would help us on the road to recovery

dan_d

+1
They're easy to find too - the system instantly shows how long your claim is going for.

I don't actually understand how there are people out there who are so long on the dole (5 years plus), when after a year, people like me start getting "assessed" for things like JSA (with no guarantee of getting it) and we've paid into the system, when they never have.

wicorthered

I think the long term unemployed should definitely be hit. If you didn't have a job during the boom then you didn't want one!! Don't give me this BS about low skills and low education stopping peopling from getting a job. Up until 2007 there was jobs galore.

Obviously things have changed now, lots of honest, hard working people are now reliant on the state. I'm these are the people who would go back to work tomorrow, if they could get a job. Help these people, put don't help the ones who have never and will never work because living off the state is easier.

For me anyone aged 30+ who has never had a job should have their dole slashed by 50%!!

Devi

wicorthered wrote: »

I think the long term unemployed should definitely be hit. If you didn't have a job during the boom then you didn't want one!! Don't give me this BS about low skills and low education stopping peopling from getting a job. Up until 2007 there was jobs galore.

Obviously things have changed now, lots of honest, hard working people are now reliant on the state. I'm these are the people who would go back to work tomorrow, if they could get a job. Help these people, put don't help the ones who have never and will never work because living off the state is easier.

For me anyone aged 30+ who has never had a job should have their dole slashed by 50%!!

Totally agree, however there will be consequences.
I’d say a lot of these will resort to crime or begging, so crime and begging will go up, then they will eventually get caught and go to prison, thereby costing the state even more money. So really when ye follow it to its logical conclusion, as much as I hate to say, leaving these wasters on the dole is probably the lesser of two evils.

careca11

Devi wrote: »

Totally agree, however there will be consequences.
I’d say a lot of these will resort to crime or begging, so crime and begging will go up, then they will eventually get caught and go to prison, thereby costing the state even more money. So really when ye follow it to its logical conclusion, as much as I hate to say, leaving these wasters on the dole is probably the lesser of two evils.

a lot of these(not all) are already into crime, drug dealing etc ,
so they are currently doubly costing the state , thru welfare and prison.

I don't bye into the low education etc (if they can fleece a welfare system for years on end ....then they have enough education be given a job)

robtri

RichardAnd wrote: »

I think we should be wary of saying that reducing the dole will incentivise people back to work. What's keeping many on the dole is the lack of jobs, not the "joy" of getting state aid.

but it is only talking about cutting long term dolers... the same ones who "couldnt" find a job during the boom years.....

RichardAnd

robtri wrote: »

but it is only talking about cutting long term dolers... the same ones who "couldnt" find a job during the boom years.....

That depends on what you define as long term. Employment numbers have been dwindling for about 3 years now so not all of the long term unemployed were without work during the boom.

Plentyofice

In response to "Devi" leaving them on the doles is a lesser evil. Dunno about that.? It is a good topic for discussion though.
How about this simple plan......As previously said when we had full employment we still had 150,000 leeches/scratchers etc etc.
Go after them. By doing this the genuine people laid off who cannot find work will not be punished.
Now incentivise the 150,000 to go back to work by doing the following.
1. Don't give them €200 . Give them €100
2. In order for them to get their other €100 they must do 12 hrs of community work in their locality per week . That's basically minimum wages X 12 = €100
3. You can track it using current county council leaders/supervisors/road people /whatever you call them who designate the workload and verify it gets completed before the €100 gets handed over

Benefits
1. lazy bastards get an idea of what it's like to work
2. Ireland will look cleaner- tourism may benefit
3. Whatever support/function they do surely it'll be beneficial albeit health support/coaching/cleaning etc etc


I'd rather that than talk bull****e on how to incentivise them. !! If you gave these people the winning lotto numbers they'd complain that "THEY" have to fill out the form.!!:o

pog it

I have a couple of friends on long term dole and they have massive savings built up over the years, from living at home, no bills, etc. and just collecting dole every week. I couldn't do it and they've missed out on a lot in my opinion. They don't even spend much on anything so it's money in the bank and not helping the economy whatsoever.

pog it

Plentyofice wrote: »

In response to "Devi" leaving them on the doles is a lesser evil. Dunno about that.? It is a good topic for discussion though.
How about this simple plan......As previously said when we had full employment we still had 150,000 leeches/scratchers etc etc.
Go after them. By doing this the genuine people laid off who cannot find work will not be punished.
Now incentivise the 150,000 to go back to work by doing the following.
1. Don't give them €200 . Give them €100
2. In order for them to get their other €100 they must do 12 hrs of community work in their locality per week . That's basically minimum wages X 12 = €100
3. You can track it using current county council leaders/supervisors/road people /whatever you call them who designate the workload and verify it gets completed before the €100 gets handed over

Benefits
1. lazy bastards get an idea of what it's like to work
2. Ireland will look cleaner- tourism may benefit
3. Whatever support/function they do surely it'll be beneficial albeit health support/coaching/cleaning etc etc


I'd rather that than talk bull****e on how to incentivise them. !! If you gave these people the winning lotto numbers they'd complain that "THEY" have to fill out the form.!!:o

This is a seriously good plan.

Devi

careca11 wrote: »

a lot of these(not all) are already into crime, drug dealing etc ,
so they are currently doubly costing the state , thru welfare and prison.

I don't bye into the low education etc (if they can fleece a welfare system for years on end ....then they have enough education be given a job)

"a lot of these(not all) are already into crime, drug dealing etc"
Well the ones that arnt (probably majority) soon will be. By the way im from a crime ridden part of dublin and a lot my friends from school got into dealing drugs, they would make what people get on the dole in a week, in an hour sometimes so cutting the dole for them wouldn’t make a difference to them.

"so they are currently doubly costing the state , thru welfare and prison."
ye cant get dole while in prison as you have to availible for work.

"I don't bye into the low education etc (if they can fleece a welfare system for years on end ....then they have enough education be given a job)"
Yea but they cant put that on there cv.

neil_hosey

Plentyofice wrote: »

In response to "Devi" leaving them on the doles is a lesser evil. Dunno about that.? It is a good topic for discussion though.
How about this simple plan......As previously said when we had full employment we still had 150,000 leeches/scratchers etc etc.
Go after them. By doing this the genuine people laid off who cannot find work will not be punished.
Now incentivise the 150,000 to go back to work by doing the following.
1. Don't give them €200 . Give them €100
2. In order for them to get their other €100 they must do 12 hrs of community work in their locality per week . That's basically minimum wages X 12 = €100
3. You can track it using current county council leaders/supervisors/road people /whatever you call them who designate the workload and verify it gets completed before the €100 gets handed over

Benefits
1. lazy bastards get an idea of what it's like to work
2. Ireland will look cleaner- tourism may benefit
3. Whatever support/function they do surely it'll be beneficial albeit health support/coaching/cleaning etc etc


I'd rather that than talk bull****e on how to incentivise them. !! If you gave these people the winning lotto numbers they'd complain that "THEY" have to fill out the form.!!:o

Plentyofice for taoiseach!


i think any one with a criminal record should have dole reduced (not completely as this would encourage more crime id imagine).

i also think dole should be based on stamps youve earned working, with the exception of students/apprentices for maybe 3 years after qualification.


Love the idea of community work though!

Devi

Plentyofice wrote: »

In response to "Devi" leaving them on the doles is a lesser evil. Dunno about that.? It is a good topic for discussion though.
How about this simple plan......As previously said when we had full employment we still had 150,000 leeches/scratchers etc etc.
Go after them. By doing this the genuine people laid off who cannot find work will not be punished.
Now incentivise the 150,000 to go back to work by doing the following.
1. Don't give them €200 . Give them €100
2. In order for them to get their other €100 they must do 12 hrs of community work in their locality per week . That's basically minimum wages X 12 = €100
3. You can track it using current county council leaders/supervisors/road people /whatever you call them who designate the workload and verify it gets completed before the €100 gets handed over

Benefits
1. lazy bastards get an idea of what it's like to work
2. Ireland will look cleaner- tourism may benefit
3. Whatever support/function they do surely it'll be beneficial albeit health support/coaching/cleaning etc etc


I'd rather that than talk bull****e on how to incentivise them. !! If you gave these people the winning lotto numbers they'd complain that "THEY" have to fill out the form.!!:o

Very good idea. This makes more sense to me than just cutting then to €0 and hope they go away.

Blazer

Plentyofice wrote: »

In response to "Devi" leaving them on the doles is a lesser evil. Dunno about that.? It is a good topic for discussion though.
How about this simple plan......As previously said when we had full employment we still had 150,000 leeches/scratchers etc etc.
Go after them. By doing this the genuine people laid off who cannot find work will not be punished.
Now incentivise the 150,000 to go back to work by doing the following.
1. Don't give them €200 . Give them €100
2. In order for them to get their other €100 they must do 12 hrs of community work in their locality per week . That's basically minimum wages X 12 = €100
3. You can track it using current county council leaders/supervisors/road people /whatever you call them who designate the workload and verify it gets completed before the €100 gets handed over

Benefits
1. lazy bastards get an idea of what it's like to work
2. Ireland will look cleaner- tourism may benefit
3. Whatever support/function they do surely it'll be beneficial albeit health support/coaching/cleaning etc etc


I'd rather that than talk bull****e on how to incentivise them. !! If you gave these people the winning lotto numbers they'd complain that "THEY" have to fill out the form.!!:o

Completely agree with the above point.
Another one is any self-employed that didn't pay income tax/prsi for the past few years should get cut asap.
A lot of self employed got out of paying crap like this and then when their business falls over go cap in hand for their "dole".
My own brother was one of these and I'm not happy about it...while I was paying a fortune in tax/prsi he wasn't bothering his bollix and living the good life....except that the good life is now over and reality has kicked in big time.
Now he hasn't a bob to his name and still bitches about the dole etc not being enough..:mad:

pocketvenus

Have to say there are some really good idea on here which the Giv if they had any sense would implement but personally I think the Gov are afraid to go after the spongers who have never worked. They seem unwilling to take on these people and the bleedy heart liberal and groups who stand up for them. I am so sick of hearing ah sure he came from a hard backround etc. So what many people did and worked and studied hard to improve their situation. Sorry but alot of these people are just lazy & know that the Gov will throw money at them.

I am out of work for about 20 months now and have l0st count of the number of CV and jobs I have applied for both where I live and in other cities. Not being up myself here but I am highly educated, have glowing references from my employers & wide ranging and numerous years of experience and it is all for nothing. To be told by the Gov and OECD that I am scourge on the Gov and lazy and unwilling to work is an insult. Alot of recently unemployed people have more intelligence and qualifications to run the country then those eejits we currently have in power. They seem not to be able to distinguish between recently unemployed and those who never worked.

Also the gov needs to re-define long term unemployed. Alot of hard working people have been out of work for about 2 -3 years it is not fair to tar them all with one brush. With no jobs out there you cannot really use same definitions anymore.

As other posters said it is easy to start with those who never worked the 150,000 + of them and start hitting there first.

later12

Plentyofice wrote: »

when we had full employment we still had 150,000 leeches/scratchers etc etc.

pocketvenus wrote: »

As other posters said it is easy to start with those who never worked the 150,000 + of them and start hitting there first.

The unemployment figure was not 150,000 during the boom.

The overall unemployment figure according to the QNHS was about 70,000 during one stage of the boom, the lowest rate in Europe, compared with about 300,000 unemployed today, one of the highest rates in Europe.

Could people please stop repeating this 150,000 figure as the minimum unemployment, that is blatantly incorrect.

Plentyofice

Ok sorry

Lets say 70,000 leeches then

So....70,000 X €200 X 52 weeks per year = €728,000,000 per annum

€728,000,000 X how many years scratching ?? Say 5 = €3,640,000,000 that we have spent (generally taxpayers money) in the past 5 years on these F**kin scratchers...that's just on the dole...I haven't started on all the other bull****e like benefits and any other possible freebie they can get.
Ask yourself one question . If the 70,000 are not being pushed/forced to look for work or attempt to work do you think they will take up the mantle with their own bat ?....will they fcuk.!!!
Expect XX amount of years throwing 728,000,000 into an open fire.....when we're flat broke and a gee hair away from default.!
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Devi

I think for this discussing to go any further we need to clarify two things -
A. What is a long termer, 6 months, 2yrs, 5yrs, 15yrs?
B. How much are they actually costing the state?

oh sorry, youve just answed one of my questions.

later12

Plentyofice wrote: »

Ok sorry

Lets say 70,000 leeches then

So....70,000 X €200 X 52 weeks per year = €728,000,000 per annum

€728,000,000 X how many years scratching ?? Say 5 = €3,640,000,000 that we have spent (generally taxpayers money) in the past 5 years on these F**kin scratchers

Actually, of those 70,000, about 20,000 were long term unemployed. Even at the height of the boom, you are always going to have people who are temporarily out of work, be it for 2 weeks or a few months.

So you would be better of looking at the (approx) 20,000 people who were long term unemployed during the boom years... note: not all of these would have been receiving any benefits or entitled to any benefits.

So go ahead....

sollar

Plentyofice wrote: »

Ok sorry

Lets say 70,000 leeches then

So....70,000 X €200 X 52 weeks per year = €728,000,000 per annum

€728,000,000 X how many years scratching ?? Say 5 = €3,640,000,000 that we have spent (generally taxpayers money) in the past 5 years on these F**kin scratchers...that's just on the dole...I haven't started on all the other bull****e like benefits and any other possible freebie they can get.
Ask yourself one question . If the 70,000 are not being pushed/forced to look for work or attempt to work do you think they will take up the mantle with their own bat ?....will they fcuk.!!!
Expect XX amount of years throwing 728,000,000 into an open fire.....when we're flat broke and a gee hair away from default.!
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Plenty would have been costing the state more than 200 a week. When medical cards, fuel allowance, rent allowance etc is added in.

pocketvenus

Devi wrote: »

I think for this discussing to go any further we need to clarify two things -
A. What is a long termer, 6 months, 2yrs, 5yrs, 15yrs?
B. How much are they actually costing the state?

oh sorry, youve just answed one of my questions.

See that is the problem nowdays. In boom times long tern unemployed could easier be classified as maybe 1 or 2 years.

Nowdays with such few jobs available it is not so easy to say that someone 2 years out of work is long term unemployed. When you say 2 years ok it sounds long but in reality it is not in current economic times there are hardly any jobs and also people may have been doing training courses / add on courses during that time so that also has to be accounted for.

I think that nowdays from when the crash happened and uneployment soared these people who maybe have been out of work for 2-3 years being classed as long term unemployed is not really suitable.

Hope I have explained myself correctly.

later12

Long term unemployed is not a random description, it is a classification of those who have been unemployed for 12 months or longer. This is the official definition used by the state to describe the long term unemployed.

pocketvenus

later10 wrote: »

Long term unemployed is not a random description, it is a classification of those who have been unemployed for 12 months or longer. This is the official definition used by the state to describe the long term unemployed.

Official description or not it is worthless in today's terms and it is an easy way out for the Gov to avoid tackling the route problems with the SW welfare system as it classes those who never worked as the same as those who have worked and contributed to society as the same.
That way is is easy for them to say oh all LT unemployed should be cut etc. Instead of make a proper distinction between them.

careca11

Devi wrote: »

I think for this discussing to go any further we need to clarify two things -
A. What is a long termer, 6 months, 2yrs, 5yrs, 15yrs?
B. How much are they actually costing the state?

oh sorry, youve just answed one of my questions.

the gov say long term = 12months or more
i think thats wrong ............................economy started to collapse towards end of 2008 ,
so 4 years or more would be a better measure as it covers a period of the so called Boom where lots of jobs where available

careca11

pocketvenus wrote: »

Have to say there are some really good idea on here which the Giv if they had any sense would implement but personally I think the Gov are afraid to go after the spongers who have never worked. They seem unwilling to take on these people and the bleedy heart liberal and groups who stand up for them. I am so sick of hearing ah sure he came from a hard backround etc. So what many people did and worked and studied hard to improve their situation. Sorry but alot of these people are just lazy & know that the Gov will throw money at them.

I am out of work for about 20 months now and have l0st count of the number of CV and jobs I have applied for both where I live and in other cities. Not being up myself here but I am highly educated, have glowing references from my employers & wide ranging and numerous years of experience and it is all for nothing. To be told by the Gov and OECD that I am scourge on the Gov and lazy and unwilling to work is an insult. Alot of recently unemployed people have more intelligence and qualifications to run the country then those eejits we currently have in power. They seem not to be able to distinguish between recently unemployed and those who never worked.

Also the gov needs to re-define long term unemployed. Alot of hard working people have been out of work for about 2 -3 years it is not fair to tar them all with one brush. With no jobs out there you cannot really use same definitions anymore.

As other posters said it is easy to start with those who never worked the 150,000 + of them and start hitting there first.

out of interest's sake , if your anyway good at IT , a recruitment agency in Dublin have a batter of IT jobs available ,
I received an e-mail from them the other day ,
if you want to PM me your e-mail address I will forward it on to you if you like

later12

pocketvenus wrote: »

Official description or not it is worthless in today's terms

not really. 12 months is a long time to find a job. Personally I find it hard to understand how someone could spend an entire year out of work without coming up with anything.

pocketvenus

later10 wrote: »

not really. 12 months is a long time to find a job. Personally I find it hard to understand how someone could spend an entire year out of work without coming up with anything.

Look I am not being rude but I am so so sick to my teeth or people throwing this argument bacck anytime anyone says they cannot get a job.

You ask aot of the recently unemployed and they will tell you getting an interview is huge success. I recently applied for a job and got down to final two in end the other candiate had a years more expereince than me and she got it. However talking to the employer she told me she got 600 CV for this job and the majority of candiates were over qualified for job or where achitects, financial staff.

In the RECESSION we currently have there are few jobs. Also not everyone is an engineer, linguist which at the mo there are some jobs in.


If you find it so easy how about you hand over your job to someone for a year as an exeperiment and see how easy it is to get one. People in glass houses should not throw bricks. As I said not being rude but walk a mile in another mas shoes before you make a judgement.

pocketvenus

careca11 wrote: »

out of interest's sake , if your anyway good at IT , a recruitment agency in Dublin have a batter of IT jobs available ,
I received an e-mail from them the other day ,
if you want to PM me your e-mail address I will forward it on to you if you like

Thanks careca11 that is very kind you you but IT is not my area. Offer was greatly apprecaited.

At this stage I think I am looking to go US bound.

careca11

no problem , good luck with the US plan...hope it goes well .



if anyone else is interested in the e-mail (IT JOBS) , PM me your e-mail address and i will forward it to you ,

sarumite

I think the government need to cut all spending...that includes the dole. Though in the past the OP has called me a begrudger etc when I made similar comments.

RichardAnd

later10 wrote: »

not really. 12 months is a long time to find a job. Personally I find it hard to understand how someone could spend an entire year out of work without coming up with anything.

Unless you happen to be extrelly skilled in an in-demand area, it's not at all hard to see how it could happen.

I was unemployed for 6 months and before that, I would have agreed with you. However, after sending out CV after CV and not even getting a thank you, my confidence began to wane. This continued until, right before I got a job, I had resigned myself to being unemployed and I had begun to look at emigrating.

Me getting a job was luck and if I haden't gotten it, I can't say what might have happened.

jjll

i am on dole but look at fas website in my are there only have been 67 jobs this week people do want to work but the jobs in certain areas arent there cutting dole is just going to send people out living on streets and im sorry say this but all the negative comments im sure are from people in work

thebman

later10 wrote: »

not really. 12 months is a long time to find a job. Personally I find it hard to understand how someone could spend an entire year out of work without coming up with anything.

I know someone who has been applying for close to a year now with no job found.

They have 12 years experience but no jobs in that area and people that have experience in the areas she is applying for jobs, keep getting them.

She has run out of savings at this point but she was offered two commission only jobs but is too scared to take them as she will have literally no money if she can't make it work and she has no experience in that area.

later12

Not to derail the thread, but do people who are looking for jobs, whether currently in employment or not, consider that the vacancies are picking up?

From anecdotal evidence alone I seem to have heard of a lot more vacancies than were around say one year or 18 months ago... particularly in finance and in high street retail, interestingly, but it hasn't been a concentrated observation.