Why only €44 ?? Why not the lot...?

MidlandsM

...they should have lost the lot............no dole whatsoever .......

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dole-cut-for-over-1200-who-refused-jobs-or-interviews-3213026.html


A TOTAL of 1,275 job seeker payments have been reduced by the Department of Social Protection since April because claimants refused training, jobs or interviews.
The cuts are of up to €44 a week for the highest rate of job seeker benefit of €188.
The cuts, which only apply to personal payments and not to adult of child dependants, are imposed because there is a right to payment but a matching responsibility on the part of the unemployed person to engage with the system, the Department said.
The Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed (INOU) said today that imposing pay cuts should be an absolute last resort.
Spokesperson Brid O’Brien said that education was the biggest issue for the unemployed and the number looking to take part in training courses was far greater than the number of training places

FatherLen

when you have a family to support and you're forced onto the dole because of the current job climate, come back and say eradicate the dole.

it should never be eradicated, it should be means tested. if someone is still at home with mammy and hasn't been actively seeking employment then no dole for them. but the honest hard working people that have fallen on hard times..........you think they should get no help?


and before you ask, no i am not on the dole and never have been.

Degag

MidlandsM wrote: »

...they should have lost the lot............no dole whatsoever .......

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dole-cut-for-over-1200-who-refused-jobs-or-interviews-3213026.html


A TOTAL of 1,275 job seeker payments have been reduced by the Department of Social Protection since April because claimants refused training, jobs or interviews.
The cuts are of up to €44 a week for the highest rate of job seeker benefit of €188.
The cuts, which only apply to personal payments and not to adult of child dependants, are imposed because there is a right to payment but a matching responsibility on the part of the unemployed person to engage with the system, the Department said.
The Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed (INOU) said today that imposing pay cuts should be an absolute last resort.
Spokesperson Brid O’Brien said that education was the biggest issue for the unemployed and the number looking to take part in training courses was far greater than the number of training places

Disgrace alright. I know a good few people who are well capable of working but are happy to sit in the pub every night. I wish they were told they had to go out and do something, whether it be community service or otherwise, to guarantee their payments.

MidlandsM

FatherLen wrote: »

when you have a family to support and you're forced onto the dole because of the current job climate, come back and say eradicate the dole.

it should never be eradicated, it should be means tested. if someone is still at home with mammy and hasn't been actively seeking employment then no dole for them. but the honest hard working people that have fallen on hard times..........you think they should get no help?


and before you ask, no i am not on the dole and never have been.

you have no choice if you loose yer job and go on the dole, no harm done there........but you have choices when on the dole.

make the wrong choice to retrain, go for jobs etc, you should loose it........my argument to yours are 2 seperate thing........I'm not talking about entitlement......

Mr Benevolent

MidlandsM wrote: »

...they should have lost the lot............no dole whatsoever .......

Because then they'd be homeless. It's way too easy to accept a job that would end up with person earning less than they did on the dole. Whatever about the innate dignity of labour, people need money.

phasers

Do the Jobbridge 'Internships' count in this? I'd hate for people's Dole to be cut because they refused to be an unpaid shelf stacker in a supermarket.

Boombastic

Because they need the money to buy new shiny tracksuits

neil_hosey

why not have it weighted more towards stamps.. as in the amount of tax you have paid. and when it runs out you get a base rate. 40 quid a week or something

drunkmonkey

neil_hosey wrote: »

why not have it weighted more towards stamps..

Vouchers, take the cash away and give them vouchers for butter, milk, bus, ham, tea and bread. Take all their money and let them live off vouchers.

Casillas

The way our society is structured, the Government can't cut someone entirely off, in case this leads to homelessness.

Reducing the payment to the lowest limit, whilst allowed someone to be fed and sheltered is the plan.

If someone is blatantly refusing to take up paid employment, then cutting them to the bone makes sense.

As another poster asked though, would Jobridge etc. fall into this area, are the training courses offered going to lead to employment?

AnonoBoy

It's about time someone did something about this. :mad:

We haven't had a dole thread in a few hours at least.

Boombastic

Casillas wrote: »

The way our society is structured, the Government can't cut someone entirely off, in case this leads to homelessness.

Reducing the payment to the lowest limit, whilst allowed someone to be fed and sheltered is the plan.

If someone is blatantly refusing to take up paid employment, then cutting them to the bone makes sense.

As another poster asked though, would Jobridge etc. fall into this area, are the training courses offered going to lead to employment?

In a lot of cases the government is also paying for their houses, so not much chance of them ending up homeless, cut off their cash flow

Casillas

Boombastic wrote: »

In a lot of cases the government is also paying for their houses, so not much chance of them ending up homeless, cut off their cash flow

If on RA the tenant still needs to pay a portion from the dole, as well as paying for food and utilities. You may not agree with it, but Irish Governance as bad as it is, tries not to put people on the street. The plan here is to reduce whatever extra income could be used for drink/drugs whatever - of course there's nothing to stop people from just not buying food.

Also this is a tiny amount of those on welfare that have been targeted for a cut and there were multiple chances to rectify the situation.

As long as that remains the case it's seems ok, I wonder though if it would be expanded to include those who would end up with a loss - say on Jobridge if the extra e50 didn't cover work-costs leading to decreased income.