Sick of Unemployed People Getting abuse on

daltonmd

Tony EH wrote: »

This is akin to "tits, or GTFO". I.e. not helpful.

What's not helpful is your lack of evidence when you state as fact:

"Ireland, I believe, has been officially recognised by the EU as being the hardest country within the union in which to get a job"

I'm merely asking for a link to that claim. If you think that getting a job here is more difficult than in Greece, Spain, and other EU countries then I would like to see please?

Tony EH wrote: »

Assuming that "may pal" wished to go through the hassle of what reporting such an incident intails, she would then have to deal with the fallout of such an action. Your pat answer, again, isn't helpful. Also, more than likely her protestations would fall on deaf ears, or little would be done about it. Into the bargain, she is reliant on her former employer for references for her next position.

Hassle? You are implying that your friend was sacked from a viable position to make way for an unpaid worker from a scheme run by the goverment and yet this remains unreported:
From the scheme:

•
Have NO vacancies in the area of activity in which the internship is offered.
•
The placement is not displacing an employee.

I don't buy that your pal was sacked to make way for an intern yet didn't report it?

You say this is an incident? Sacked is an incident?

Tony EH wrote: »

Simplistic off the cuff remarks like "why didn't she report it" utterly fail to take into account the ramifications of such action upon the person making the complaint.

yes and not reporting it allows employers to get away with this behaviour - who do you think should stop it? How can anything be done if it goes unreported?

Tony EH wrote: »

In addition, the person on teh Jobsbridge scheme isn't going to report the incident and risk shooting herself in the foot either, is she.

Why? What has she/he got to lose?

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of people on the dole now that once shared the same petty opinions that some are expressing both here on Boards and elsewhere. It's too easy for loudmouths to sit and gripe about the 400 000 dole scroungers and how cutting their social welfare would make Irealnd "great" again. I'd wager a great deal of them change their opinions, once the reality of surviving on the dole is brought home to them, when they themselves are chucked out of their job.

Nobody said that - but I guess you don't want to hear that? Suits you better to label everyone here as begrudgers, who lable everyone on the dole as a waster - double standards much?

Tony EH wrote: »

No, the point is that cutting peoples social welfare won't do anything to create jobs and moaning about people on the dole is just petty.

It's not about creating jobs - It's about living within our means.

Tony EH wrote: »

The social welfare system needs overhauling and reconstruction, not blanket cutting, which will only serve to make life harder for people who are already finding it difficult. But that overhaul will take time and management. Something that our governing bodies are particularly bad at, as has been proven time and time again.

No blanket cutting but blanket payments? Again double standards.

Tony EH wrote: »

Our country has a long history of not being able to generate jobs for its citizens and that doesn't seem to be in the process of changing in the future. There is and has been a lack of political will to engender the environment to create work the country.

Really? What about the boom? No amount of political will, changes peoples sense of entitlement.

Sleepy

EchoO wrote: »

You seem to be denying the extent to which the number of unemployed people exceed job vacancies though. The ratio is 26:1. Can you supply any evidence to support your undeniable assertion that low paid employment is being turned down by Irish nationals in large numbers? I can't seem to find any.

Not denying it at all. We are going to have high unemployment in this country for quite a while tbh. After a decade of mis-educating and mis-allocation our human capital, that's unavoidable. What is avoidable, in such a climate, however, it any level of vacancies going unfilled by those unemployed.

So those who live in an area where they can't find a job should move? (echos of Norman Tebbitt) There are around 16,800 job vacancies and 436,700 unemployed. Where exactly are the other 419,900 going to move to? How many people can the Irish educational/vocational training system upskill in a year? At a guess, a fraction of the 436,700.

If the reason they're not finding employment is because they live in a rural setting or somewhere with no demand for workers, yes. How many people working in Dublin grew up there?

EchoO

Laminations wrote: »

Well reducing spending might allow monies otherwise eaten up by welfare by siphoned into a capital expenditure / stimulus program and help create the circumstances and opportunity for job creation.

As per the bailout agreement with the troika the social welfare bill is going to be reduced. The initial reduction agreed with FF was 3.6 billion, I assume it's still roughly the same amount

Count Dooku wrote: »

It forcing unemployed take jobs for less rather than stay on dole
BTW, immigration is far from zero and lot of low paid jobs had been taken by immigrants
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/PPSN/Pages/ppsn_all_month12.aspx
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/PPSN/Pages/ppsn_all_month11.aspx
This is why Germany protected own labour market as part of welfare reform

The German economy has grown steadily since 2008, over the same period Ireland has experienced it's deepest recession in it's history. So implying that if we followed the German model then our long term unemployment rate would follow the same downward trend as theirs has is, frankly, ridiculous. Our problem is not large numbers of people refusing to take up low paid jobs, it's the lack of jobs being created by our economy. Job vacancies to people unemployed in Ireland is 1 to 26, in Germany it's 1 to3.

cricketfan

Tony EH wrote: »

How does one find a job without access to a phone or the internet? They are absolutely essential instruments to getting a job these days. It's utterly ridiculous to slam people on welfare for wanting these items.

Also, the salient point is that there aren't enough jobs to go around for our unemployed people. That's really it in a nutshell. If there were the jobs out there, then the vast majority of people availing of social welfare now would be working. Most people haven't "lost" their jobs...their jobs lost them and if given the choice would happily be back in the situation they were in prior to having to go on the dole.

Ireland, I believe, has been officially recognised by the EU as being the hardest country within the union in which to get a job. I recall reading somewhere (but I cannot vouch for the accuracy) that in the first 6 months of 2011, 6000 job vacancies were made available in Ireland. That was go around the near 400.000 unemployed people that we have. If there's any truth in that maths, then the odds are very much against unemployed people genuinely seeking work and our government(s) don't seem to have the political will to try and do anything about it...to any real degree anyway. Fas and Jobsbridge are a joke and if that's what the powers that be have in mind as a remedy to the current jobs crisis, then the need to try harder. MUCH harder. Jobsbridge is an especially vile contraption and an example of government/employer cronyism at its worst, allowing employers to ditch paid (and tax paying) employees and bring in Jobsbridge interns and do the same job for free. It also allows the government to massage the "people in work" figures into more favorable terms for themselves. I personally know of one person who was let go from her job as a PA, only to hear that the week after, her job was filed by a Jobsbridge "intern".

I agree with the OP. I find it incredible that some people, both here on Boards and elsewhere have this fetid, little begrudging view that unemployed people are scroungers, or wasters and as I've said before, I hope those people get made redundant in the coming months, then find it hard or impossible to get a job and I guarantee you they'll be singing a very different tune.

One of the most sensible analysis I've read on this forum. People latch on to urban myths to qualify their argument. It could be the immigrant who gets welfare and a house, my standard of living has decreased over the last 4 years and I blame all those lazy unemployed. The media doesn't help with a continuous campaign against the cost of the welfare budget.

If it carries on like this in a few years we will have a complete separation across society. Your accident of birth will define how well or not you travel throughout life. That's like going back to in time rather than forward.

dchris

Sleepy wrote: »

What is avoidable, in such a climate, however, it any level of vacancies going unfilled by those unemployed.

What do you mean here? There will always be vacancies no matter how many people are unemployed. with c. 1.5 million people in employment, have 15k-20k vacancies at anyone time is the norm.

People still move jobs, retire, get promoted, get head hunted. Companies also change their labour demands based on the stage of business cycle they are at eg sometimes you lay off product design staff and hire sales staff.. It's known as Labour Mobility.

Again, people are making assumptions that are not economically accurate.

dchris

EchoO wrote: »

The German economy has grown steadily since 2008, over the same period Ireland has experienced it's deepest recession in it's history. So implying that if we followed the German model then our long term unemployment rate would follow the same downward trend as theirs has is, frankly, ridiculous. Our problem is not large numbers of people refusing to take up low paid jobs, it's the lack of jobs being created by our economy. Job vacancies to people unemployed in Ireland is 1 to 26, in Germany it's 1 to3.

This is a good point. No one has really mentioned growth. Job creation will only come from growth stimulus and definitely not SW reduction. Reducing Social Welfare will cause a deepening of the problem by removing purchasing power of nearly 50% of the population. This , no doubt would have serious affects on the indigenous economy.

I strongly believe that a % of all bailout funds we receive should (and should of) been put towards a growth stimulus package. Otherwise, any money we borrowing is just going on filling holes in banking etc and will do noting proactive in attracting FDI and job creation.

If a 1 billion of every 10 billion we get in bailouts needed, that would be a stimulus package of probably 20 billion by the end of 2013

Count Dooku

EchoO wrote: »

The German economy has grown steadily since 2008, over the same period Ireland has experienced it's deepest recession in it's history. So implying that if we followed the German model then our long term unemployment rate would follow the same downward trend as theirs has is, frankly, ridiculous. Our problem is not large numbers of people refusing to take up low paid jobs, it's the lack of jobs being created by our economy. Job vacancies to people unemployed in Ireland is 1 to 26, in Germany it's 1 to3.

It is more easy to create jobs in Germany because there is no minimum wage. It makes more easier create jobs for low skilled workforce and rewards upskilling

daltonmd

dchris wrote: »

This is a good point. No one has really mentioned growth. Job creation will only come from growth stimulus and definitely not SW reduction. Reducing Social Welfare will cause a deepening of the problem by removing purchasing power of nearly 50% of the population. This , no doubt would have serious affects on the indigenous economy.

I strongly believe that a % of all bailout funds we receive should (and should of) been put towards a growth stimulus package. Otherwise, any money we borrowing is just going on filling holes in banking etc and will do noting proactive in attracting FDI and job creation.

If a 1 billion of every 10 billion we get in bailouts needed, that would be a stimulus package of probably 20 billion by the end of 2013

50% of the population? Can you say how you come to this amount?

dchris

daltonmd wrote: »

50% of the population? Can you say how you come to this amount?

2.1million people in Ireland receive some sort of Social Welfare benefit.. Will find the reference and add it in

"Scale of the Department’s business
Each week approximately 1.4 million people receive a social welfare payment and,
when qualified adults and children are included, a total of almost 2.1 million people
benefit from weekly payments. More than 600,000 families receive child benefit
payments in respect of over 1.2 million children each month.
Over the course of a year
• 2.5 million applications are processed each year
• Almost 85 million payments are made
• 450,000 assessments are conducted by inspectors
• 750,000 control reviews are carried out
• 6.5 million telephone calls answered
• promotion and distribution countrywide of over 60 information
booklets/leaflets and a wide range of forms
• processing applications for Personal Public Service (PPS) Numbers for
customers from 200 countries. "

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/AboutUs/Minister/Documents/Minister_Brief_2011.pdf
Page 3, para 2.

daltonmd

dchris wrote: »

2.1million people in Ireland receive some sort of Social Welfare benefit.. Will find the reference and add it in

Are you including pensions, disability, invalidity, child benefit etc..?

EchoO

Count Dooku wrote: »

It is more easy to create jobs in Germany because there is no minimum wage. It makes more easier create jobs for low skilled workforce and rewards upskilling

No, it's easier to create jobs in Germany because they are not in a recession, we are.

dchris

Just to flip the whole thing on it's head a bit, would it not be more acceptable to argue that many of the 600,000 people in receipt of child benefit , should not take it as they actually do not need it? Surely they are the real morally corrupt?

daltonmd

dchris wrote: »

2.1million people in Ireland receive some sort of Social Welfare benefit.. Will find the reference and add it in

"Scale of the Department’s business
Each week approximately 1.4 million people receive a social welfare payment and,
when qualified adults and children are included, a total of almost 2.1 million people
benefit from weekly payments. More than 600,000 families receive child benefit
payments in respect of over 1.2 million children each month.
Over the course of a year
• 2.5 million applications are processed each year
• Almost 85 million payments are made
• 450,000 assessments are conducted by inspectors
• 750,000 control reviews are carried out
• 6.5 million telephone calls answered
• promotion and distribution countrywide of over 60 information
booklets/leaflets and a wide range of forms
• processing applications for Personal Public Service (PPS) Numbers for
customers from 200 countries. "

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/AboutUs/Minister/Documents/Minister_Brief_2011.pdf
Page 3, para 2.

Thanks, I thought you might be including these.

daltonmd

dchris wrote: »

Just to flip the whole thing on it's head a bit, would it not be more acceptable to argue that many of the 600,000 people in receipt of child benefit , should not take it as they actually do not need it? Surely they are the real morally corrupt?

It's how to find out who needs it though isn't it? I think accusing people of taking up a benefit that is available, as being morally corrupt is a little harsh.

Should the onus not be on the goverment to have a better system in place for payment?

Gurgle

dchris wrote: »

many of the 600,000 people in receipt of child benefit , should not take it as they actually do not need it?

Most believe they need it, in the modern first world sense of 'need', i.e. would really miss it if they lost it.

Of the others.. those who wouldn't miss it... they're at least moderately wealthy people paying high taxes and would (justifiably?) feel entitled to get something back. Especially in view of the fact that they get very nearly nothing in exchange for their taxes.

dchris

daltonmd wrote: »

It's how to find out who needs it though isn't it? I think accusing people of taking up a benefit that is available, as being morally corrupt is a little harsh.

Should the onus not be on the goverment to have a better system in place for payment?

Same for unemployed, they are entitled to it too

daltonmd

dchris wrote: »

Same for unemployed, they are entitled to it too

Who said they weren't? Did I? I don't recall that at all - the point, that has been re-itereated again and again (and your recent posts serve only to highlight the fact) is that we do not have the money to continue doing this.

At some point, someone in Europe is going to say : ENOUGH - why are we lending money to a country who has such a generous SW system, MORE generous than we can afford to give our own citizens.

carm

AlekSmart wrote: »

The media did indeed have a recent attack of the wobblies on the "Communion Allowance" topic...which is another of the "Discretionary Payments" available to those on Supplementary Welfare Allowance who know about them......;)

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/community_welfare_officers.html



The key is the "etc".

Fully aware of the attack on the communion allowance, which has been cut. You'd have to be on your ar5e and get down on bended knee to be entitled to supplementary allowances so there'd be no fantastic extras like 42 inch tvs.

The reality is: if you're on all the extra supplements through welfare, you may well be able to afford the nice car, the nice holiday, the nice tv, the nice phone, the fast broadband connection, the branded dress. Statistically, what is the figure of people in this cushy category? Anyone? I haven't got the figures but I BET you most are in receipt of rent allowance. What's that figure? 93800. How many are signing on? You do the maths.

Then there are the rest of us. Who have broken our backs for decades pumping tax into this system and are entitled to practically nothing. It's been going on for years on this board, attack those who are down, ignorantly mix everyone on welfare into a "better off on the dole" group, while the arrogance of the worker (not all) who doesn't appreciate how lucky they are to have the self-respect of having a job compared to those who have lost practically everything.

daltonmd

carm wrote: »

Fully aware of the attack on the communion allowance, which has been cut. You'd have to be on your ar5e and get down on bended knee to be entitled to supplementary allowances.

The reality is: if you're on all the extra supplements through welfare, you may well be able to afford the nice car, the nice holiday, the nice tv, the nice phone, the fast broadband connection, the branded dress. Statistically, what is the figure of people in this cushy category? Anyone? I haven't got the figures but I BET you most are in receipt of rent allowance. What's that figure? 93800. How many are signing on? You do the maths.

Then there are the rest of us. Who have broken our backs for decades pumping tax into this system and are entitled to practically nothing. It's been going on for years on this board, attack those who are down, ignorantly mix everyone on welfare into a "better off on the dole" group, while the arrogance of the worker (not all) who doesn't appreciate how lucky they are to have the self-respect of having a job compared to those who have lost practically everything.

dchris has posted the breakdown a couple of posts up.

Tony EH

sarumite wrote: »

I don't think I could find a job in my field without regular internet access if I had to. Most employers in my area either use online applications forms or emails for recruitment. Most (if not all) solely advertise online (or in expensive professional journals) and Fas is useless for anything specialised. I actually don't know where the nearest internet shop is, and by the time I paid for the travel to get there and used their computers to do the research etc for the particular role and filled out the forms the cost would probably close to the same as having internet at home.

The vast majority of employers/agencies use the web for advertising jobs. It's a ridiculous notion to suggest that one should/could use the paper in lieu of regular web access. The days of picking up a job from an ad in the paper are long gone.

And it's a good point you bring up about internet shops. I actually don't know where the nearest one to me is either. The one I used to go to, years ago has long closed down, due to the fact that most people have the web piped into their homes. It also cost rought 3 or 4 euro an hour IIRC. So, if one was to do that every day, plus buy a paper, they'd be even worse off that paying for a basic package every month.

As I said earlier, access to the internet is an essential piece of kit if you are pursuing a new job and it's something you really need to be checking every day.

Sleepy

dchris wrote: »

What do you mean here? There will always be vacancies no matter how many people are unemployed. with c. 1.5 million people in employment, have 15k-20k vacancies at anyone time is the norm.

People still move jobs, retire, get promoted, get head hunted. Companies also change their labour demands based on the stage of business cycle they are at eg sometimes you lay off product design staff and hire sales staff.. It's known as Labour Mobility.

Again, people are making assumptions that are not economically accurate.

I specifically said vacancies going unfilled. i.e. those that aren't the normal, quickly filled positions any healthy economy will have.

If there's one job not being filled because someone believes themselves deserving of more money than is on offer, is too proud to perform such a "menial" task or because they're better off on the dole that's one too many imo.

KyussBishop

daltonmd wrote: »

All of this is very well but you don't address the main problem. And that simply is, that we do not have the money to maintain these high rates of benefits.

It is not begrudgery to comment on people who are on the dole who rate a car and internet as a basic neccessity, the phone, well I'll concede the point, but not if you are locked into a 24 month contract for an iPhone.


The definition of amentiy is : Something that contributes to physical or material comfort.
The definition of a necessity is:

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2011/12/14/12/define-necessity-25167-1323883032-2.jpg


In your view, and you are not alone - internet and a car, whether you are working or not, is something that you absolutely cannot live without?

Really?

I didn't mention anything about cars, and your new argument "it's unsustainable" doesn't mean welfare is to be the sole recipient of cuts in funding, does it?

My previous post pointed out the fallacy of the silly welfare fraud argument and begrugery over basic amenities argument, as a justification for cutting welfare.
It's especially silly with the amenities argument, as to of the prime arguments, mobile phone and internet, are ridiculously cheap; yet there is still the argument that internet is excessive, despite being attainable at only €8 a month (how many trips to an internet shop would you get out of that? try jobseeking at internet shops, with a monthly budget of €8).

Totally ridiculous areas of criticism, when you look at the costs of even a week or twos worth of expenditure for food and other essentials.


Not only are these arguments silly, but there is the totally fallacious implicit assumption behind these arguments (since they are argued as a reason to cut welfare), that the grand majority of people on welfare are purposefully living beyond their means, hanging on to an 'excessive' lifestyle.

This is backed up by totally unrepresentative anecdotal stories, and is used to pretty much judge all welfare recipients.
Posters claim not to be "telling people what to do", whilst in the same breath judging all welfare recipients with a handful of straw-man arguments/anecdotes about excess (over items which are not expensive at all), and then saying "they should pick 'x' cheap alternative instead".


If the benefit rates are too high (relative to what recipients need to get by), fine, cut them, but the silly anecdotal arguments and bickering over basic amenities are largely fallacious reasoning for reducing it.

If you want to argue for social welfare to be reduced, show how it is excessive based on cost of living, not based on random made up anecdotes.
If it is shown to be excessive based on costs of living, then I fully support reducing it, but if it's not, the cost of living needs to be addressed (which it does anyway regardless of SW).

If the problem shifts to cost of living, that is a much wider issue, not simplistically solved in one go by slashing SW.


In summary, again: If there are legitimate arguments for cutting SW, grand lets hear them out, but people are sticking to the same fallacious arguments again and again as justifications for cutting it, often applying judgments to all people on welfare at the same time.

The worst of those arguments, are based on anecdotal stories of excess, without any effort to show how those arguments apply to all welfare recipients; these arguments just peddle a talking point for bashing welfare recipients, without any substance to back them.

Sleepy wrote:

Cutting social welfare would create employment as it would make it cheaper for employers to add an extra member of staff to their team: when you're competing against welfare rates that can leave a man better off on welfare than working in a job that pays anything less than 40k* it's hard to hire extra staff if your profit levels can only support paying minimum wage.

(*based on my own situation - co-habiting in a rented house with a stay-at-home partner and two kids, luckily for me my education and career choices mean I can earn a little more than that)

Eh? On initial look, job seekers allowance will net you less than 8 grand a year, and even if you combine that with other benefits, comparing it to a 40k salary is ridiculous.

That's another wholly fallacious line of arguing: That anyone can just ditch their job and start sponging on benefits, therefore it is more beneficial for them to do so; totally ridiculous, and it again presumes that jobs are available for people to take, when obviously there are not.


If people are claiming that cutting SW will produce even a fraction of enough jobs to deal with the unemployment rate, they will need to back that up with some figures or links.
Not just links that say "it will create some jobs", but actual figures to show how many are likely to be created; if the sole requirement for any argument is "it will create some jobs", you can justify almost any argument, so it needs figures to back it, and/or precedence in some other country.

(Excuse the mega-post, a lot of points to reply to since I last posted)

Tony EH

daltonmd wrote: »

From the scheme:

•
Have NO vacancies in the area of activity in which the internship is offered.
•
The placement is not displacing an employee.

I don't buy that your pal was sacked to make way for an intern yet didn't report it?

You say this is an incident? Sacked is an incident?

I don't care what you buy into.

I put "intern" in commas, specifically because I don't know what else to all it. Working for nothing is like an internship. Even if Jobsbridge aren't calling it an "internship", it amounts to roughly the same thing.

Perhaps, I should have just called it slavery.

In addition, the scheme isn't obviously going to say that it's allowing employers to ditch staff that they need to pay, in order to take on non-paid staff, are they? Use your head.

The fact is, the girl I know, was let go from her PA job and within the week or so, her position was filled by someone working for nothing. Now, it's obvious that her former employer needed a PA, so he lets her go and gets one in for free, plus saves the money spent on her wage. It may not have been the intent on behalf of the employer from the beginning, however it's worked out that way. As a result, one person is out of a job, another is working for nothing (also contributing no income tax) and the only winner is the employer.

I sincerely doubt it's an isolated case.

These schemes are nothing new. In fact, an English chap I know said that Britain tried roughly the same scheme (that's where our "leaders" got the idea from) and it was found lacking. Tesco came under fire for its hiring of "free labour" staff. Whether full/part time staff were let go to make way for those "freebees" is another story.

daltonmd wrote: »

yes and not reporting it allows employers to get away with this behaviour - who do you think should stop it? How can anything be done if it goes unreported?

You've obviously missed the important part of the paragraph, or chose to ignore it. She has no faith that anything will actually be done and (I'll underline this for you) she is reliant on her former employer for references for her next job.

daltonmd wrote: »

Why? What has she/he got to lose?

You're not thinking again. The girl doing the job now for free, is probably under the impression that she has a foot in the door and is hoping that it will lead to a permanent situation, or at least a segway into a position another company. That's how these schemes are presented.

That's not that hard to understand, is it?

You would do yourself a better service by thinking about your replies, instead of just rattling off the first thing that comes to your head.

daltonmd wrote: »

Suits you better to label everyone here as begrudgers, who lable everyone on the dole as a waster - double standards much?

I've done no such thing.

daltonmd wrote: »

Really? What about the boom?

Again, this is just a rattled off reply, issued without any real thought.

The "boom" was a small period in a long history of our nations inability to create sustainable work for its citizens.

puffishoes

Tony EH wrote: »

I


Again, this is just a rattled off reply, issued without an real thought.

The "boom" was a small period in long history of our nations inability to create sustainable work for its citizens.

during this boom SW payments increased up to 70%

why when inflation was no where near 70%?

would you happy for SW to be adjusted by inflation/deflation?

Tony EH

puffishoes wrote: »

during this boom SW payments increased up to 70%

why when inflation was no where near 70%?

would you happy for SW to be adjusted by inflation/deflation?

Social welfare payments are supposed to be adjusted to the relative cost of living. If SW payments are "high", it's because the cost of living is high.

puffishoes

Tony EH wrote: »

The vast majority of employers/agencies use the web for advertising jobs. It's a ridiculous notion to suggest that one should/could use the paper in lieu of regular web access. The days of picking up a job from an ad in the paper are long gone.

And it's a good point you bring up about internet shops. I actually don't know where the nearest one to me is either. The one I used to go to, years ago has long closed down, due to the fact that most people have the web piped into their homes. It also cost rought 3 or 4 euro an hour IIRC. So, if one was to do that every day, plus buy a paper, they'd be even worse off that paying for a basic package every month.

As I said earlier, access to the internet is an essential piece of kit if you are pursuing a new job and it's something you really need to be checking every day.

What's wrong with your local library? FAS center? obair? etc where there's no fee?

Are you the one person in ireland that's in the back of yonder with no access to run of the mill daily ameninites?

move..

puffishoes

Tony EH wrote: »

Social welfare payments are supposed to be adjusted to the relative cost of living. If SW payments are "high", it's because the cost of living is high.

but the cost of living did not increase by 70% during the years the Sw did.

Are you happy for it to be adjusted on the basis of inflation/deflation?

Tony EH

puffishoes wrote: »

What's wrong with your local library? FAS center? obair? etc where there's no fee?

Are you the one person in ireland that's in the back of yonder with no access to run of the mill daily ameninites?

move..

Another point, punctuated with a stupid remark. "Move" indeed. :rolleyes:

And FAS is a joke. Be serious, if you wish to have your points taken seriously. There's only a limited amount of jobs posted there. You really have to be putting the time on the usual jobs sites and even then it can take months to actually get work.

Local libraries may be an option for some when hunting for a job, but may not be for others, who could be living in very rural areas, which is quite a significant amount of the population. Some people may have to travel some distance to their local library etc and even then may not be guarenteed access to the web.

Your reply is a pat answer that ignores the very real issue of disadvantage of no regular internet access, when job hunting.

...and I live in Dublin, I am not speaking for myself on these matters. I have plenty of libraries that I can go to, if needs be. I don't need to, because I have the net at home.

Jame Gumb

I would have thought that it's wrong to slate unemployed people but that it's okay to slate unemployed people who milk the system?

Aren't they two distinct groups - Genuine cases and what are effectively fraudulent cases?

dchris

Sleepy wrote: »

I specifically said vacancies going unfilled. i.e. those that aren't the normal, quickly filled positions any healthy economy will have.

If there's one job not being filled because someone believes themselves deserving of more money than is on offer, is too proud to perform such a "menial" task or because they're better off on the dole that's one too many imo.

Do you have any figures or proof that this is happening? Only ones which I am aware of would be "Commission Only" jobs which imo are borderline scams. And then jobs such as chefs , where there has been a shortage of supply of chefs and it will take time for (duration of training) to increase supply.

Is there sectors whereby minimum wage positions exist and are not filled? I am not doubting you, but would like to what they are so I can figure why it is happening,
thanks