Hard to employ someone due to welfare

mistermee

Hi all,

Not entirely sure whether this is for this forum or work & jobs.

Anyway, recently interviewed a few people for a job that I'm currently paying €10 per hour for,for 15 hours per week.

Made it clear to all interviewees that they payments will be on the books through payroll. Had to specify this as I offered someone a job in the past who after starting told me he needed to be paid cash. I then had to retract the job offer when he refused to go on payroll.

I offered this latest job to a particular person. He then tells me that he might end up losing benefits etc if he is on the books. He discusses it with the welfare office who tell him basically that by taking up this employment he will lose rent allowance, medical card and benefits.

firstly I'm annoyed with the person because despite me specifying that this job will be through payroll, and them agreeing, they subsequently, after starting tell me that it wont work out.

I'm more annoyed with the system though. Depsite a person wanting to work, they are prevented from doing so for fear of coming off worse financially.

Why cant our system accomodate a person who is willing to work, and finds a job for a few hours per week.

For example, if this person is earning €150 per week, rather than penalising them completely, why cant the system reduce their combined benefits to the tune of €150. It's a saving to the state after all.

Does that not make sense?
What is preventing this from happening?

tony81

15 hours a week will suit some people.

For example, if you are offering two full days, 7.5 hours a day, the person can claim for the other three days. If you want the person to come in 3 hours a day for 5 days, possibly sending them home early if business is slack, etc, it really would be pointless for that person to take up your offer of employment.

I think the onus is on employers to offer fair and equitable employment opportunities. I'm not saying you're not doing this.. however, I know a shopkeeper who wanted her staff to be as flexible as possible and would have loved if she could get people in for a couple of hours each lunchtime... she couldn't keep staff and ended up selling the business because it was too stressful for her.

Also, consider employing younger people who perhaps are on the lower rate of the dole (€100/€150) and don't receive rent supplement. They would be only too happy of the hours.

mistermee

tony81 wrote: »

15 hours a week will suit some people.

For example, if you are offering two full days, 7.5 hours a day, the person can claim for the other three days. If you want the person to come in 3 hours a day for 5 days, possibly sending them home early if business is slack, etc, it really would be pointless for that person to take up your offer of employment.

I think the onus is on employers to offer fair and equitable employment opportunities. I'm not saying you're not doing this.. however, I know a shopkeeper who wanted her staff to be as flexible as possible and would have loved if she could get people in for a couple of hours each lunchtime... she couldn't keep staff and ended up selling the business because it was too stressful for her.

Also, consider employing younger people who perhaps are on the lower rate of the dole (€100/€150) and don't receive rent supplement. They would be only too happy of the hours.

yes the hours are spread out over a number of days. when I advertised I specified fully flexible. as a small business owner it's what I need and can afford.

my point however is that I feel these people shouldnt be prevented from joining the workplace. why cant their benefits be cut by the amount they are earning rather than it being more beneficial for them to receive state aid when clearly they want to work.

even if I employed someone on the lower rate of €100, by accepting the extra €50 per week from me, they will/could still lose their medical card and rent allowance.

the incentive to work is limited by the system.

mistermee

sorry, I dont want this to seem like a rant.
I know its an old issue but it's only really affected me these past few months and I'm genuinely interested to know why cant benefits simply be cut by the amount a person is earning, rather than just be cut forever.

upinthesky

yes it is a shame that it goes on the days you work rather than the hours. if you spread the 15 hours over 5 days the person cant claim any job seekers but if they spread the 15 hours over 3 days the can claim 2 days on there job seekers just doesn't make sense.

i can see it been very hard to get someone for a few hours every day why not employe two people each to do two days a week.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

mp22

Moved from state benefits.

mp22

CatFromHue

Are there any college/universities nearby. If so you could contact the Student Union about advertising/looking for student(s) to work in your place.

They could be alot more flexible (depending on how much you want someone to work) and wouldn't have any Social Welfare problems.

tony81

mistermee wrote: »

yes the hours are spread out over a number of days. when I advertised I specified fully flexible. as a small business owner it's what I need and can afford.

my point however is that I feel these people shouldnt be prevented from joining the workplace. why cant their benefits be cut by the amount they are earning rather than it being more beneficial for them to receive state aid when clearly they want to work.

even if I employed someone on the lower rate of €100, by accepting the extra €50 per week from me, they will/could still lose their medical card and rent allowance.

the incentive to work is limited by the system.

They wouldn't necessarily lose their medical card, and they may still qualify for supplementary welfare allowance such as rent supplement as they are not working more than 30 hours a week.

I think you need to be realistic in what you are asking for. Even if people were allowed to work and just have their earnings deducted from welfare, it still wouldn't be worth their time or effort for zero reward.

Furthermore, you specify "full flexibility". I read that as "i want you to bend over backwards for me, while what I offer is a low-paid job with inconvenient hours and no benefits, and I'll take a hissy if you're not available exactly when I need you"...

Maybe it's a communication issue. Maybe you are great to work for, but you're attracting the wrong applicants. You have answered the "what's in it for me?" part of the question. But now answer "what's in it for you?"

There are many people who would love to work for you. People with another part-time job. People who don't qualify for rent supplement. Students who are mean-tested on their parents and available to work certain hours. Graduates who want work experience. People whose spouse works and is the main bread-winner, but who want to get back into the workforce themselves.

You can't blame your ability to attract staff entirely on the welfare system. You need to realise that your proposition isn't very attractive (at least from the wording of your ad).. the hours you have available are sparse, possibly inconvenient, possibly unreliable.. it would suit very few people by the sounds of it.

However, if you advertise "I need an experienced person to work Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, 12pm to 4pm".. you might be surprised at the level of interest you suddenly get.

mistermee

tony81 wrote: »

They wouldn't necessarily lose their medical card, and they may still qualify for supplementary welfare allowance such as rent supplement as they are not working more than 30 hours a week.

I think you need to be realistic in what you are asking for. Even if people were allowed to work and just have their earnings deducted from welfare, it still wouldn't be worth their time or effort for zero reward.

Furthermore, you specify "full flexibility". I read that as "i want you to bend over backwards for me, while what I offer is a low-paid job with inconvenient hours and no benefits, and I'll take a hissy if you're not available exactly when I need you"...

Maybe it's a communication issue. Maybe you are great to work for, but you're attracting the wrong applicants. You have answered the "what's in it for me?" part of the question. But now answer "what's in it for you?"

There are many people who would love to work for you. People with another part-time job. People who don't qualify for rent supplement. Students who are mean-tested on their parents and available to work certain hours. Graduates who want work experience. People whose spouse works and is the main bread-winner, but who want to get back into the workforce themselves.

You can't blame your ability to attract staff entirely on the welfare system. You need to realise that your proposition isn't very attractive (at least from the wording of your ad).. the hours you have available are sparse, possibly inconvenient, possibly unreliable.. it would suit very few people by the sounds of it.

However, if you advertise "I need an experienced person to work Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, 12pm to 4pm".. you might be surprised at the level of interest you suddenly get.

the reward is having a job! i was unemplyed for a long time before I decided to start this business. I would have done anything. I did also lose my dole just so that I could work a few hours per week to get experience/keep my sanity!

the nature of my business means that its not possible to employ someone for 3 days in a row. Thats why I specified fully flexible, so that anyone who applied should be fully flexible. Whilst it may be a low paid job to some, the standard pay in this industry is minimum wage. I refuse to pay that though.

I recieved 64 CV's for this position and I have since filled it.

The point of my post though was to enquire as to why the system prefers a lot of people to remain on the dole rather than go out and work and gain experience, which in turn could lead to bigger and better things for the employee whilst also saving the state a few euros.

i wasnt referring to my ability to attract staff and i certainly wasnt blaming it on the welfare system. luckily enough there were plenty of suitable canditates for me to choose from, however I feel the system works against some people who want to work, yet cant afford to.
this in turn makes it difficult for them to get a job in the future due to a gap in their CV

mikemac1

Is it a cleaning job?

looksee

Its a bit the same with the job-bridge, or internship, idea. You have to be on the dole to get on to it, but if you have a stop-gap job rather than go on the dole, no matter what qualifications you have worked for, you can't do an internship and get relevant experience.

Mrs OBumble

mistermee wrote: »

The point of my post though was to enquire as to why the system prefers a lot of people to remain on the dole rather than go out and work and gain experience

I agree with you that the system is silly: work one single hour on the 4th day and someone loses the whole benefit for the week.

But that makes it a question for your TD and favourite political party, rather than us. So I think I might move this over to politics ...

endofrainbow

this in turn makes it difficult for them to get a job in the future due to a gap in their CV[/QUOTE]

I hope employers don't see a gap in cv's as an obstacle - it's called the live register and a recession.....:mad:

moved from politics

Lapin

mp22 wrote: »

Moved from state benefits.

bluewolf wrote: »

moved from politics

This thread is being moved around more often than a piece of red tape in the Department of Social Protection.


While I agree with the OP that being in employment is better than doing nothing, I also believe this is often being used as an excuse.

Surely employment must have some incentives other than saying 'its better than doing nothing'.

Furthermore, in my own experience, staff feel more motivated if they are rewarded, rather than taken for granted.

christmas2012

there is an element in irish society whereby they just dont want to get a job due to benefits of medical card and other such benefits,esp if they have a large family,which is understanable to a degree but if it was me i think i would go for the job anyway and see how it works out,its always better to have an open mind instead of going in with a closed minded attitude,as you never know what doors it could open for you..