Time limit for dole?

boobar

Kirby wrote: »

They still do this. You have to fill out a form every six months or so and provide written proof of failed applications, interviews etc.

Honestly, the militant "Spungerrrrs on da dole" brigade that show their faces everytime a thread like this rolls around are obviously already in employment. It's very, very easy to have a go at people struggling when you have a job yourself. Put yourselvs in their shoes for a minute please everyone before the flaming begins.

Well said Kirby.

Mint Sauce

I think social welfare/or who ever's behind the desk make up the rules as they go along.

Spent about 5 months on JSB about 6 years ago, had to produce a stack of letters that i had sent and received from job applications before they would continue processing my claim.

Was then unfortunatly made redundant from one of them jobs about 18 months ago. Afterwards spent time on both JSB and JSA, took about a year before even getting some part time work, then got on a FAS course, but not once was i asked to produce any sort of prove that I was serching for work.

I would certainly welcome tighter controls, and a reduction in benefit after a certain time if you cant produce prove of trying to gain work or education, and I mean generally seeking work, not sent for an interview by SW, just to continue getting paid, and deliberatly failing the interview, ala Spud from trainspotting

**NSFW**

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBAXWz-8arw

IrishEyes19

I say get rid of the riddiculous "internships and working for free experience. What a bloody joke and exploitation of people. I saw one grocery shop taking on a kid and she working a full week with no pay just to get some retail experience.

Its no wonder there's no jobs been advertised with this sort of carry on when companies can abuse people like that.

Worztron

The fat overpaid fascists now want free labor to help them do their job. http://www.thejournal.ie/tds-jobbridge-interns-could-help-us-do-our-jobs-326890-Jan2012/

LighterGuy

Alot of people on here support this so far,
I'd be curious to find out how long of a time limit people think?


(i expect some ridiculous comments such as only a month!!!)

ProudDUB

What some might see it as exploitation, others may see it as a person acquiring the necessary skills to enter the retail trade as a paid employee. Whenever I see signs in shops that are hiring, 9 times out of 10 they also say that previous retail experience is required. If two people show up at that shop for an interview, who is more likely to get the job, the person who spent their time acquiring retail experience, or the person who sits on their arse at home all day watching Oprah?

Play Bunny

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

with that rotten attitude i hope you lose your job.

while i agree that the government must create more of an incentive for people to get back to work... they first need to prioritise getting actual jobs FOR people to apply for before penalising people that are out of work due to lack of jobs.

hondasam wrote: »

It is time social welfare fraud was stopped, anyone signing on for more than six months should have to explain themselves.
I would go as far as to say after six months on the dole payments should be reduced.

agreed, reducing dole payments after 6mths is aload of ****e in this day and age of recession and no jobs out there, newsflash alot of those ppl have houses/kids/mortgages /bills, so get a grip! i for one dont want to be unemployed...neither do the majority on the dole

gsxr1

ProudDUB wrote: »

What some might see it as exploitation, others may see it as a person acquiring the necessary skills to enter the retail trade as a paid employee. Whenever I see signs in shops that are hiring, 9 times out of 10 they also say that previous retail experience is required. If two people show up at that shop for an interview, who is more likely to get the job, the person who spent their time acquiring retail experience, or the person who sits on their arse at home all day watching Oprah?

simples really. no need to sort the wheat from the chaff if you already know your people can perform . I see this lots. And its true from a retail point. Lots of dumb kids who cant keep time and dont really know how to work have to be sorted through. No mammy to spoon feed can shock lots of them into a rebellion . bye bye.

Companies especially now need value from there work force . From the get go.
wasters take so much resources

LH Pathe

My time limit is 3wks. Sometimes I forget to pick up; but fück it.. always next wk.

jay-me

The sad reality of the whole situation is that a lot of the long termers on the dole just aren't employable in most positions... You can only have a certain amount of suitable jobs that you can trust Jacinta and Vinno in... And if their dole is cut partially or completely the rise in petty crime is going to go through the roof.. And then we are going to find we can't house them in prison without burdening the tax payer even more.. So I think the best thing is to leave things the way they are for the safety and improvement of the economy untill such time that we can afford to imprison them.

gsxr1

jay-me wrote: »

The sad reality of the whole situation is that a lot of the long termers on the dole just aren't employable in most positions... You can only have a certain amount of suitable jobs that you can trust Jacinta and Vinno in... And if their dole is cut partially or completely the rise in petty crime is going to go through the roof.. And then we are going to find we can't house them in prison without burdening the tax payer even more.. So I think the best thing is to leave things the way they are for the safety and improvement of the economy untill such time that we can afford to imprison them.

You know . After seeing some of the numb skulls out there. I cant disagree with a word you said. Some folk are just too stupid to be left with the most simplest of tasks. I sometimes wonder how some of the lads I work with, manage to dress themselves .

monkeysnapper

i was saying the exact same thing to my wife the other day,

i know a man locally and he's been unemployed for about 7 years,
he briefly got a local job in a supermarket and couldnt even stack a shelf with the label facing forward, but yet fathered a child, his wife is also long term on the dole, they cant be that thick tho because they know how to travel through airports in ireland and abroad every year on there sunshine holiday

Terrontress

You hear a lot of people phoning in to radio shows such as Liveline, complaining about some element of their lifestyle. It might be that they only have a three bedroom house but have four kids or that they can't afford a holiday or only get 'out' two nights per mont and it becomes apparent that they are existing solely on benefit and they also have a sense of entitlement without doing a hand's turn. They feel so aggrieved that they have to talk to Joe.

I think that the people claiming the most are who feel most hard done by. They usually can afford to run a car, manage to budget a few pints per week, have a 50" plasma screen and the kids have xboxes.

All things that most people in full time employment struggle to afford. It's enough to make the blood boil although I am not sure it is representative of social welfare recipients as a whole but the few examples of it, especially publicised on the radio, leads to the draconian calls.

The worst part is that these wasters have already realised that sickness benefit is better than dole as they don't have to prove that they are looking for work. Claim a bad back or depression, neither of which can be easily disproved, get a relative on to carer's allowance and then sit in a free home, watching your big tv, complaining that you can't get an extra grand to go on a holiday to Torremilinos to relax in the healing waters of a hotel swimming pool to loosen up de back.

mandrake04

Lisa2011 wrote: »

Thats a good idea but you need to meet criteria to get in. If you dont meed the standard criteria the one thing that will get you in there is if you have worked at least 20 hours a week for the last 12 months in an occupation that they want.

That's partly true.... To meet migration requirements you must have worked 12 months full time out of the last 24 months in an occupation on the Skilled occupation list.

Toby Take a Bow

ProudDUB wrote: »

What some might see it as exploitation, others may see it as a person acquiring the necessary skills to enter the retail trade as a paid employee. Whenever I see signs in shops that are hiring, 9 times out of 10 they also say that previous retail experience is required. If two people show up at that shop for an interview, who is more likely to get the job, the person who spent their time acquiring retail experience, or the person who sits on their arse at home all day watching Oprah?

There will never be just the two people with those varying skills (or lack of skills) going for that job, though, will there? There'll be 10 + people with the specific skills required for that particular job. Your work experience in jobbridge or whatever will more than likely count for absolutely nothing. As I've said previously, employers can and will pick and choose, so unless you have specific retail experience essentially doing exactly the same job as being advertised (and probably at a higher level and pay than what is being offered) you're not going to get that job. From my own personal experience, anyway.

The only time when this isn't (really) the case is the month or so before Christmas, where you'll get a month before Christmas and possibly the sales before you're made redundant again.

angelfire9

Come May 2012 I will be out of work 2 years
I've applied for jobs nearly every single week since I've been off work
Most weeks 2-3 applications have gone in and I've had loads of interviews but am either over qualified or my experience is not specific enough to get me the job

Never in the almost 2 years i've been signing have I been asked to provide proof that I am looking for work
That's a joke IMHO
I've no problem bringing in reams of paper with proofs of applications, interviews & rejections but then again I am genuinely looking for work

THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE

Signing on shouldn't be a simple matter of queue up, sign your name & off you go til next month

MickShamrock

ejmaztec wrote: »

People just aren't emigrating quick enough.

That's a lifestyle choice! :pac:

Mike 1972

acidskiffle wrote: »

Switch on off your tv and try take a look at what's happening in the real world.

FYP!

SHOVELLER

While Burton has the right idea this should have been done during the boom when the unemployment figures were at their lowest ever. However it needs to be done as we are haemorraging billions to pay people to do nothing. Nobody should be on unemployment assistance from 18 to their 60s.

The US model is something that should be seriously looked at. If you are laid off in a full time job you are entitled to 99 weeks of benefits. So in effect you have 2 years to find work. After that period you are on your own.

Unlike here if you leave a job there you are entitled to nothing.

If we took on this model the unemployment benefit idea would remain the same. However once your benefit expired that is it. There would be no unemployment assistance. Why should taxpayers be funding someone's assistance that has never worked.

As mentioned already anybody on the dole here longer than 2/3 years are unemployable. It is not economically viable to train them when they have lost social skills and the ability to function in a working environment.

From 1 January 2013 unemployment assistance should be abolished. Unemployment benefit to be increased to 24 months. However this would not apply to those currently unemployed.

PhlegmyMoses

I don't agree with a lot of that Shoveller. I'm always wary of looking at any method the US use to deal with the most vulnerable people in their society. They have a pretty poor track record when it comes to this. I do agree that this should have been done when we had 4% unemployment rates, though. The people on long-term unemployment because they weren't bothered to get a job were easy to pinpoint in an economy with an abundance of jobs. Now though, I reckon it is conceivable that people could go a long time without a job despite applying for everything and anything. The mistake people make is that they think the long-term unemployed now are the same as the long-term unemployed in 2005, for example. I also do not believe that somebody out of work for 2 years loses the ability to work and interact in the workplace. The losing social skills part is a bit crazy tbh. I spent my first 16 years on this planet not working and got on fine once I got in there.

Jim_Kiy

Employment benefits should you need them should be based on what you put into the system..more you work the more money you should get if you ever need to use the system.I agree now is not the time to become draconian and have people wandering the streets going through your wheelie bin for food but a gradual phase in and only when the unemployment rates drop.

Niles

I agree this would probably have been better implemented in the boom times, considering at the moment there are a lot of people genuinely unable to get work for a long period of time.

However, I don't really have a problem with it, as someone pointed out as long as you are trying to get work (and keeping proof of this) then there's nothing to fear. In fact, this might actually be a good way to sort the genuine jobseekers from the dossers, something which is needed. How practical it is though remains to be seen.

Niles

Jim_Kiy wrote: »

Employment benefits should you need them should be based on what you put into the system..more you work the more money you should get if you ever need to use the system.

Thing is though, you'd need to consider those just out of school/college who haven't had the opportunity to pay a large amount of tax due to only having had summer jobs or part-time jobs at best.

Lady Chuckles

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

I say get rid of the riddiculous "internships and working for free experience. What a bloody joke and exploitation of people. I saw one grocery shop taking on a kid and she working a full week with no pay just to get some retail experience.

Its no wonder there's no jobs been advertised with this sort of carry on when companies can abuse people like that.

Well said!
I've been on many "internships". I had the same hours as everybody else, the difference being I never got to have holidays, I had to spend my tired evenings applying for jobs and to make matters worse the dole money wasn't enough for rent and food. When my time of internship was up, the company would go get someone else for the same internship... and then someone else after that... and someone else after that... It's a great way of taking advantage and breaking somebody's spirit.

Experience is good, but I didn't even get to choose where to have my internships.

Niles

I've no problem with govt. sponsored internships in theory but they need to be closely regulated, none of this "the intern will learn to serve coffee" nonsense.

Wompa1

I say anybody who tries to back up their point of view by citing The Journal as a source should be instantly disregarded.

Worztron

Wompa1 wrote: »

I say anybody who tries to back up their point of view by citing The Journal as a source should be instantly disregarded.

I am unfamiliar with 'The Journal'. Please elaborate why you don't like it.

Doc Ruby

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

In 2005, Ireland's unemployment rate was 4.2% - lower than the UK and even lower than Luxembourg where its small population should make it easier to impact on the figures. The general consensus at the time was that it could be broken down into 2.5% long term unemployed and 1.5% in a state of flux - people who had lost their job and were actively seeking new work or students just finished their degrees/leaving cert. From what I can see, the figure sits around 14.3% now. So what has changed? Have people become more lazy and more willing to earn a relative pittance on the dole? Most likely not. I would argue that the vast majority of the people on the dole right now would bite your hand off if they were offered their old job back. Maybe part of the problem is that people expect a job like their old one and are less likely to take on less heralded work. Even taking this into account, it is hard to get away from the fact that the difference between 2005's figures and today's is the ready availability of jobs. Solutions like this one may force some qualified people into taking so-called menial work, which is fine. But I'm really not certain that it will have any great effect on the number of people collecting the dole until more jobs become available. What these figures prove is that you can come up with as many voter pleasing schemes to get those lazy heathens off the dole but the only sure fire way to get our unemployment rate back to 2005 levels is to get the number of jobs back to what it was. Whether this is possible or not is another matter but I would be spending more time trying to figure out ways to stimulate interest in Ireland as a place to locate/start up a business and re-skilling people who are trained in industries that have dried up than looking for solutions to a problem that did not exist when we actually had jobs. I am not ignoring the fact that we have to look at ways to slash dole costs but solutions like this just seem to ignore the elephant in the room. People are not lazier and are looking for jobs. They just aren't there.

Excellent post.

Mint Sauce

Wompa1 wrote: »

I say anybody who tries to back up their point of view by citing The Journal as a source should be instantly disregarded.

Could have been worse, could have been the Daily Fail. But with over two hundred posts to read though, and regardless of the quality of the journalism, what is the Journal artical you refer to?

Wompa1

irish-stew wrote: »

Could have been worse, could have been the Daily Fail. But with over two hundred posts to read though, and regardless of the quality of the journalism, what is the Journal artical you refer to?

One would be the one from last week about Micheal Noonan saying that emigration was a life style choice...he was taken out of context and it got sensationalized and I'm not a fan of his either. I just don't like lazy journalism.