Sick of Unemployed People Getting abuse on

Tony EH

puffishoes wrote: »

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?

Says who?

As far as I recall, the cost of living went up a significant degree. I don't know what percentages are involved and, I'd wager, neither do you really.

But then, you think that people on SW are living in, quote, "luxury".

I would be in favour of a fair overhaul of the present systems, not blanket cuts.

The situation requires a surgeons scalpel, not a bludgeon.

Unfortunately, as I've said, our government(s) appear to lack the will to engage in such measures.

The child benefit issue is a perfect example. It's an all or nothing approach, when a propper meanstest should be applied. But the governing bodies don't wish to engage the problem in the more complicated way.

Frankly, offering someone who is on 50 grand a year child benefit is ridiculous.

puffishoes

Tony EH wrote: »

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

Yes of course, moving is a stupid ridiculous idea. Lets sit at home and hope a job comes in the post that' close to us.

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

Are you reading the threads at all? if you go to a FAS centre they will let you use there machines for internet access and the phone in the FAS centre so you can make calls free of charge. wtf has this got to do with jobs posted on FAS?

internet access IN - TER - NET ACC ESS.

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

So they have the option of

the local FAS centre.

a librabary.

an oboair office.

and many more depending on where you live.

we can all find excuses but i live in ruaral ireland, oh but i can't cycle a bike

we can only help people who want to be hlped if you want to find excuses to do SFA you'll find them a plenty.

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

you're trying to find that one person.

can't walk

can't cycle

lives in rural ireland

no fas centre close

no library

no obair

no busses.

how many of the 400k+ are in this situation?

K-9

Okay, can we stop the fixation on the internet as it's taking over the thread and people aren't going to agree, people can use their phones for the internet these days.

Just a reminder that anecdotal evidence is frowned on and there already has been an on thread warning about that, it not only applies to welfare stories but jobbridge as well.

Keep it civil please.

puffishoes

Tony EH wrote: »

Says who?

the CSO

Tony EH wrote: »

As far as I recall, the cost of living went up a significant degree. I don't know what percentages are involved and, I'd wager, neither do you really.

cso.ie we've been in a deflation period for a number of years now.

Tony EH wrote: »

But then, you think that people on SW are living in, quote, "luxury".

currently?

Yes that's pretty obvious.

Tony EH wrote: »

I would be in favour of a fair overhaul of the present systems, not blanket cuts.

The situation requires a surgeons scalpel, not a bludgeon.

Unfortunately, as I've said, our government(s) appear to lack the will to engage in such measures.

The child benefit issue is a perfect example. It's an all or nothing approach, when a propper meanstest should be applied. But the governing bodies don't wish to engage the problem in the more complicated way.

Frankly, offering someone who is on 50 grand a year child benefit is ridiculous.

meanstesting costs money. you simply tax it at source. done.

KyussBishop

Jame Gumb wrote: »

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?

Pretty much yes; my problem, is that the small minority engaging in fraud/milking of welfare, get used as an argument to bash and judge all welfare recipients, calling for a slash in welfare funding.

Despite the false nature of that argument being pointed out several times, it keeps coming up again and again, and is used as a talking point to bash all welfare recipients.

Tony EH

puffishoes wrote: »

currently?

Yes that's pretty obvious.

What absolute rubbish.

You actually think that people on social welfare are living in luxury.

If that's the case, you are simply not worth talking to. You clearly aren't being serious.

puffishoes

KyussBishop wrote: »

Pretty much yes; my problem, is that the small minority engaging in fraud/milking of welfare, get used as an argument to bash and judge all welfare recipients, calling for a slash in welfare funding.

Despite the false nature of that argument being pointed out several times, it keeps coming up again and again, and is used as a talking point to bash all welfare recipients.

the "slashing" of welfare has nothing to do with bashing

we cannot afford to pay the current levels of SW payments. end of story.

no judging, no bashing.

no money.

broke.

Tony EH

KyussBishop wrote: »

Pretty much yes; my problem, is that the small minority engaging in fraud/milking of welfare, get used as an argument to bash and judge all welfare recipients, calling for a slash in welfare funding.

Despite the false nature of that argument being pointed out several times, it keeps coming up again and again, and is used as a talking point to bash all welfare recipients.

Only by the most bitter, low minded people.

puffishoes

Tony EH wrote: »

What absolute rubbish.

You actually think that people on social welfare are living in luxury.

If that's the case, you are simply not worth talking to. You clearly aren't being serious.

The idea behind the SW is to give people a fairly basic standard of living as a stop gap between jobs.

food/shelter/clothing/

now someone who's taking in excess of 820e a month. with just the above to pay out. will probably end up with more disposable income than most working people with mortages/cars/etc to finance.

so yes based on this it's a luxry.

can you stop accusing me of not being serious and take on my points address them explain why you think they're wrong and stop with the childish retorts.

EchoO

puffishoes wrote: »

the "slashing" of welfare has nothing to do with bashing

we cannot afford to pay the current levels of SW payments. end of story.

no judging, no bashing.

no money.

broke.

And we are in a bailout program that will bring government spending, including welfare, to levels we can afford.

dchris

EchoO wrote: »

And we are in a bailout program that will bring government spending, including welfare, to levels we can afford.

In 2007 Government Expenditure was 63 Billion, while income was 61 billion.

In 2011 Government Expenditure was 68 billion , while income was 54 billion.

Servicing debt in 2011 cost 5 billion.

I have attached a interesting graph of a comparison of 2007-2011

daltonmd

KyussBishop wrote: »

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?

If you bothered to read the entire thread you will find that "sustainability" is the argument that is relevant - if we could sustain the system then we wouldn't be having this conversation:

One of my first posts I said:

"They are not struggling because SW is too low - they are struggling because it doesn't cover the remnants of when they worked and brought in a decent income. "

I have never said people aren't entitled to SW.


Seems that you didn't bother reading my posts I haven't bothered reading the rest of this.

daltonmd

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

Call it what you want - some of us see it as an opportunity to get your brain working and see it as "maybe" a way to secure employment down the line.

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

So now the Government "Allow" this to happen, they are lying when they say otherwise?

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

So you claim - and yet she did nothing about it?

Tony EH wrote: »

I sincerely doubt it's an isolated case.

Another claim.

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

And her former employer is LEGALLY OBLIGED to give her a reference - do you get that?

Tony EH wrote: »

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?

SO REPORT IT - seems you know so much about it.

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

And you'd do yourself and your friend a better service by advising her of her rights.

Tony EH wrote: »

I've done no such thing.

Yes you have.

dchris

daltonmd wrote: »

Call it what you want - some of us see it as an opportunity to get your brain working and see it as "maybe" a way to secure employment down the line.
.

In relation to jobsbridge of the 6,840 people who signed up in phase one, only 797 were given a position within the company.

Some might see this as a 11% success rate, others will see it as an 89% failure rate.

It also means that for the c.6000 who never got a position, it cost the state 50 euro per week per person for 6-9 months.

Which means each job created by jobsbridge cost approximately 15,000 euro





http://www.longfordleader.ie/news/business/opportunities-in-longford-as-jobbridge-extended-1-3872944

Programme is 6-9 months ( I used 35 weeks as an average)
Government paid €50.00 to each participant (Total number if participants in phase 1 was 6840)
Total that got jobs (797)

35*50*6840/797 = €15,018 per job secured

daltonmd

dchris wrote: »

In relation to jobsbridge of the 6,840 people who signed up in phase one, only 797 were given a position within the company.

Some might see this as a 11% success rate, others will see it as an 89% failure rate.

It also means that for the c.6000 who never got a position, it cost the state 50 euro per week per person for 6-9 months.

Which means each job created by jobsbridge cost approximately 15,000 euro





http://www.longfordleader.ie/news/business/opportunities-in-longford-as-jobbridge-extended-1-3872944

Programme is 6-9 months ( I used 35 weeks as an average)
Government paid €50.00 to each participant (Total number if participants in phase 1 was 6840)
Total that got jobs (797)

35*50*6840/797 = €15,018 per job secured

Which means that the other people had job training costing 50 euro per week.
Which fills a gap in their CV.

797 people not drawing SW. 797 people working and paying taxes. One person off SW for 18 months recoups that cost (approx 15k).

That's not a bad result in my book. How you view it as bad I don't know, surely 797 people LESS on the dole is a good thing? without the initiative who knows.

It's a marathon not a sprint and any success should be welcomed.

Delancey

I am very mindful of the moderator warning about Anecdotal ' Evidence ' but I would suggest folks who have an unqualified belief in the Jobridge scheme perhaps take a few minutes to read some of the stories posted in the Work and Jobs forum by those who have actually participated.

Lets just say they would tend to undermine one's confidence in the scheme.

daltonmd

Delancey wrote: »

I am very mindful of the moderator warning about Anecdotal ' Evidence ' but I would suggest folks who have an unqualified belief in the Jobridge scheme perhaps take a few minutes to read some of the stories posted in the Work and Jobs forum by those who have actually participated.

Lets just say they would tend to undermine one's confidence in the scheme.

it's not that I have an unqualified belief in it - I actually hadn't heard of any success stories until they were posted and for the people who were able to secure work it is a success.

Of course there will be problems, no-one is denying that, but it's a new scheme, an initiave with problems that need to be addressed and ironed out.
As I said, it's not a sprint it takes time to build up these schemes.

dchris

daltonmd wrote: »

Which means that the other people had job training costing 50 euro per week.
Which fills a gap in their CV.

797 people not drawing SW. 797 people working and paying taxes. One person off SW for 18 months recoups that cost (approx 15k).

That's not a bad result in my book. How you view it as bad I don't know, surely 797 people LESS on the dole is a good thing? without the initiative who knows.

It's a marathon not a sprint and any success should be welcomed.

Where did I say it was a bad thing? I just stated the facts? The fact is that it cost about 11,970,000 to create 797 jobs is all I said.

Any long term jobs that are created are welcome in my view. I do think it is a very expensive way to create jobs though.

I also worry that the jobs will not be long term and the training people received is not "new experience" Insomuch that other people who are unemployed already have the experience to do these jobs.

I would prefer that there was a higher success rate of the programme and more commitment from the firms.

I think a fairer programme whereby in the first year the state continues to pay the the individuals unemployment benefits, and the company contributes the remainder to bring the individuals salary up to minimum wage, in lieu of paying employers PRSI for 1 other existing staff member. And over a 3 year period the state gradually pays less and the company pays more.

Tony EH

daltonmd wrote: »

And her former employer is LEGALLY OBLIGED to give her a reference - do you get that?

i don't know. You're either very dumb, or deliberately trying misunderstand the point.

She's fearful of the repercussions. She's relying on a reference from her former employer...

...a good reference.

There's no "legal" requirement for that.

Is it really that hard for you to comprehend? Or are you just content to play silly buggers.

I really cannot make it any clearer for you.

daltonmd wrote: »

Yes you have.

Your level of debate leaves a lot to be desired, as does your level of comprehension.

For your benefit, I'll reproduce the original sentence for you below with the operative word both bolded and underlined:

"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..."




I'm done with you.

christmas2012

I agree with the jobbrige thing other poster said,its too expensive,and its also abused by employers for free labour..

Job bridge is a job blocker , as it occupies what could be a paid job advertised , and also it is used to misrepresent dole figures by our government,and not only that whats worse as you pointed out,it is an expense and a burden on the exchequer..

An example would be some rich cashed up multinational comes into ireland and instead of looking for paid workers they turn around and sign up to job bridge.Thus creating unemployment blackspots..

Tony EH

Tesco in England came under severe criticism for their abuse of the English version of Jobsbridge. It may be only a matter of time before the same criticism is levelled at Irish businesses.

The current itteration of Jobsbridge is wrong.

I believe dchris has it correct. More commitment in a financial way would be very welcome and it would, in fact, offer a far greater incentive to join the scheme.

The "step up" falsity doesn't apply.

With the companies offering a monetary reward for a persons labour, it would at least help with self-respect.

Working for nothing makes people feel like chumps.

Sleepy

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

I'll use my own scenario: co-habiting couple, two kids. Renting a basic 3 bed terrace in a decent part of Dublin. Sole income as childcare costs would swallow anything my other half could earn.

Welfare Entitlements:
Job Seekers Benefit: €188
Dependent Adult: €124.80
Dependent Child €29.80 * 2 = €59.60

Total: €372.40 * 52 = €19364.80 per annum.

Rent Allowance:
Rent of €925 per month = €11,100 per annum
Less Personal Contribution of €35 per week = (€1820)

Total Value of Welfare: €28,644.80
And that's before allowing for medical card, back to school allowance or any Exceptional Needs payments for communions, emergencies etc. Nor am I accounting for the costs of having a job: commute, maintaining a work wardrobe, chipping in to office collections etc.

According to the Deloitte tax calculator here, a salary of €37,000 would land you a net of €28,893 in my position. a whopping €248.20 more than my dole entitlements (or less than one weeks dole or an exceptional needs payment for a communion etc.),

I'm actually happy to see this is somewhat lower than last time I went to the effort of calculating this (due to the changes in rent allowance limits).

So, apologies, not quite a 40k salary, though the same tax calculator tells me that would leave you a whole €1,440 better off a year than the welfare entitlements above. Or €27.70 a week, about the price of a weekly bus ticket. So, no, I'm sorry to say I'm not being that ridiculous at all.

EchoO

Sleepy wrote: »

I'll use my own scenario: co-habiting couple, two kids. Renting a basic 3 bed terrace in a decent part of Dublin. Sole income as childcare costs would swallow anything my other half could earn.

Welfare Entitlements:
Job Seekers Benefit: €188
Dependent Adult: €124.80
Dependent Child €29.80 * 2 = €59.60

Total: €372.40 * 52 = €19364.80 per annum.

Rent Allowance:
Rent of €925 per month = €11,100 per annum
Less Personal Contribution of €35 per week = (€1820)

Total Value of Welfare: €28,644.80
And that's before allowing for medical card, back to school allowance or any Exceptional Needs payments for communions, emergencies etc. Nor am I accounting for the costs of having a job: commute, maintaining a work wardrobe, chipping in to office collections etc.

According to the Deloitte tax calculator here, a salary of €37,000 would land you a net of €28,893 in my position. a whopping €248.20 more than my dole entitlements (or less than one weeks dole or an exceptional needs payment for a communion etc.),

I'm actually happy to see this is somewhat lower than last time I went to the effort of calculating this (due to the changes in rent allowance limits).

So, apologies, not quite a 40k salary, though the same tax calculator tells me that would leave you a whole €1,440 better off a year than the welfare entitlements above. Or €27.70 a week, about the price of a weekly bus ticket. So, no, I'm sorry to say I'm not being that ridiculous at all.

But only 3.4% of those on the live registor have children and also claim rent allowance.

Forest Demon

Tony EH wrote: »

Tesco in England came under severe criticism for their abuse of the English version of Jobsbridge. It may be only a matter of time before the same criticism is levelled at Irish businesses.

I read about this. They had people doing night shifts for free.

I don't know if anyone has seen the documentary about Walmart? It shows how all the goods that they supply are manufactured in China. People sleeping in the factory on the floor and never leaving the place. Eating in the factory and it all getting deducted from their wages so they have no chance of moving on.

Is that the next step for Jobsbridge Ireland? At least then people are working and retain their dignity :rolleyes:

Some employers are really taking advantage of the recession in Ireland with this Jobsbridge lark. My local super value has about 10 interns that they could employ if they wanted to. They advertised for a horticulturalist and butcher intern. One is arranging the plant pots outside the place and the other is on the deli counter.

If people want evidence that unemployed people want to work just look at how many are willing to work for nothing more then the hope of a start in a company. Its sickening. I don't begrudge people their entitlements once they are actively seeking employment or training but I also don't expect anyone to work for free.

Vizzy

EchoO wrote: »

But only 3.4% of those on the live registor have children and also claim rent allowance.

Correct me here,are you saying that only 3.4% of people on the live register(including single parents) have children and claim rent allowance ?

KyussBishop

puffishoes wrote: »

the "slashing" of welfare has nothing to do with bashing

we cannot afford to pay the current levels of SW payments. end of story.

no judging, no bashing.

no money.

broke.

The bashing is not by everyone who wants to see SW payments cut, indeed; there are a couple of posters at least though, who do posit many of the false arguments I mentioned.

While it's rare for anyone to explicitly make the generalization of applying those arguments to all people on welfare, that is always implicitly the case if those arguments are used as a contributing reason to slash welfare (because naturally that will affect all).


The other argument that many make for cutting, the unsustainability one, is not included in the above (though I disagree with it nonetheless, and addressed it in a previous post).

puffishoes wrote: »

The idea behind the SW is to give people a fairly basic standard of living as a stop gap between jobs.

food/shelter/clothing/

now someone who's taking in excess of 820e a month. with just the above to pay out. will probably end up with more disposable income than most working people with mortages/cars/etc to finance.

so yes based on this it's a luxry.

can you stop accusing me of not being serious and take on my points address them explain why you think they're wrong and stop with the childish retorts.

That's fallacious reasoning, the people on JSA can be just as saddled with mortgages and debt in general, as those with jobs, probably in similar proportion too.

KyussBishop

daltonmd wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

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?

If you bothered to read the entire thread you will find that "sustainability" is the argument that is relevant - if we could sustain the system then we wouldn't be having this conversation:

One of my first posts I said:

"They are not struggling because SW is too low - they are struggling because it doesn't cover the remnants of when they worked and brought in a decent income. "

I have never said people aren't entitled to SW.


Seems that you didn't bother reading my posts I haven't bothered reading the rest of this.

It seems you didn't bother reading mine either, because nothing in your reply makes sense in the context of my post, not even the bit you quoted? (I don't know what in my post, specifically, you're replying to there; your arguments seem to try and refute ones I didn't make)

KyussBishop

(excuse triple post; trying not to lump all my multiquotes into one post)

Sleepy wrote: »

I'll use my own scenario: co-habiting couple, two kids. Renting a basic 3 bed terrace in a decent part of Dublin. Sole income as childcare costs would swallow anything my other half could earn.

Welfare Entitlements:
Job Seekers Benefit: €188
Dependent Adult: €124.80
Dependent Child €29.80 * 2 = €59.60

Total: €372.40 * 52 = €19364.80 per annum.

Rent Allowance:
Rent of €925 per month = €11,100 per annum
Less Personal Contribution of €35 per week = (€1820)

Total Value of Welfare: €28,644.80
And that's before allowing for medical card, back to school allowance or any Exceptional Needs payments for communions, emergencies etc. Nor am I accounting for the costs of having a job: commute, maintaining a work wardrobe, chipping in to office collections etc.

According to the Deloitte tax calculator here, a salary of €37,000 would land you a net of €28,893 in my position. a whopping €248.20 more than my dole entitlements (or less than one weeks dole or an exceptional needs payment for a communion etc.),

I'm actually happy to see this is somewhat lower than last time I went to the effort of calculating this (due to the changes in rent allowance limits).

So, apologies, not quite a 40k salary, though the same tax calculator tells me that would leave you a whole €1,440 better off a year than the welfare entitlements above. Or €27.70 a week, about the price of a weekly bus ticket. So, no, I'm sorry to say I'm not being that ridiculous at all.

Interesting figures, though when you consider that it is supporting an entire family of 4 people, it seems about right.

In the context of your original quote:

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.

It's not accurate to take that 30k comparison, and generalize it to all welfare recipients, as the amount taking in that much from welfare will be very small indeed.

EchoO

Vizzy wrote: »

Correct me here,are you saying that only 3.4% of people on the live register(including single parents) have children and claim rent allowance ?

Yeah, that's the figure the ERSI report from last October came up with and there's other from UCD with the same result. I not sure how single parents fit into this, aren't they entitled to different benefits - lone parent payment?

carm

Sleepy wrote: »

Welfare Entitlements:
Job Seekers Benefit: €188
Dependent Adult: €124.80
Dependent Child €29.80 * 2 = €59.60

Total: €372.40 * 52 = €19364.80 per annum.

Rent Allowance:
Rent of €925 per month = €11,100 per annum
Less Personal Contribution of €35 per week = (€1820)

Exactly my point as to why rent allowance needs to be looked at. Remove the e11,100 pa and see how you can live on that €19,364.80 with a family of four.

If you're going to attack social welfare payments, start there. 93800 in receipt of rent allowance. How many have 2 children? How many have one or more children?