Dole cut under 26 years old

Mykola

Is it legal under age Discrimination law to pay an unemployed 24 year old 88 euro less dole than an unemployed 26 year old ?

hullaballoo

If there's one thing I'd expect a government to have control of, it's the exchequer.

What do you mean by age discrimination law? I've never heard of it but it sounds like something I'd be good at.

Cody Pomeray

The questions that arise are

1-What is the objective?
2-Is the objective valid?
3-Is the measure relevant to the objective, or is the measure arbitrary and capricious?

see In The Matter of The Employment Equality Bill, 1996, an Article 26 reference to the Supreme Court.

s. 33 of the Employment Equality Bill 1996 (as it was) allowed for "positive action" being taken in order to facilitate the integration into employment of certain age categories.

In that case, the age threshold (50 years) did not correspond to any commonly recognized age threshold, and might have seemed arbitrary and capricious, but the Supreme Court said

No doubt in this instance the age limit chosen does not correspond to any recognised threshold. Where, however, as here, the Oireachtas was dealing with a specific problem in ensuring that its legislative goal of equality of employment did not unnecessarily frustrate another objective of eliminating or reducing long-term unemployment, it was entitled, as a matter of social policy, to choose between fixing the relevant age at what was an appropriate level or employing another and more flexible, but it may be a less practicable, yardstick, such as the length of time an individual is registered as being one of the long-term unemployed. While it is possible to argue that the Oireachtas has made the wrong choice, that cannot amount to a finding that the classification for which they have adopted is irrelevant to the objective intended to be achieved or unfair or irrational.

In this case, OP, it seems hard to avoid the conclusions that the objective of reducing long term unemployment in the most vulnerable to its effects (i.e. young people) is valid, and that the measures to be adopted, such as they are, seem relevant to that objective.

Bepolite

Mykola wrote: »

Is it legal under age Discrimination law to pay an unemployed 24 year old 104% less dole than an unemployed 26 year old ?

24 year olds have to pay to be on the dole?

DuckSlice

104% less money? Well surely that is less than zero? 104% of 188 is 196.

johnnyskeleton

Mykola wrote: »

Is it legal under age Discrimination law to pay an unemployed 24 year old 104% less dole than an unemployed 26 year old ?

Unemployed people who qualify for contributory benefits ie jobseekers benefit get the same rate regardless of age.

If you've never worked and live with your folks at 24, it's reasonable that you don't get full Jobseeker's Allowance. In fact I would be in favour of such people getting nothing. If you never worked and your folks are supporting you, why should the state give you a penny? There's no constitutional infirmity in the government rationally restricting such payments.

Victor

Mykola wrote: »

Is it legal under age Discrimination law to pay an unemployed 24 year old 88 euro less dole than an unemployed 26 year old ?

The Equal Status Act (being an act of the Oireachtas) permits the Oireachtas to discriminate against people. I presume these changes will be brought about by the Social Welfare Bill.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you've never worked and live with your folks at 24

Where are you getting these two bits from?

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Where are you getting these two bits from?

I don't understand your question.

elfy4eva

I did wonder myself as it seemed a bit ageist, personally I would have rather seen a lesser cut across the board of social welfare than a heavy targeted one. FG & Lab have been pushing the message "young people should be working or in education" but surely that applies to everyone on the dole.

mitosis

I think there should be no unemployment benefit for those who have never had a job, those in college, or just out of school. They should be able to survive just as they did when in school.

hullaballoo

I'm no great fan of the current coalition but I personally don't see anything wrong with the policy rationale behind cutting dole for young people. There are many reasons but on a purely basic level, young people don't need as much money.

Mykola

mitosis wrote: »

I think there should be no unemployment benefit for those who have never had a job, those in college, or just out of school. They should be able to survive just as they did when in school.

What a load of bollox

johnnyskeleton

elfy4eva wrote: »

I did wonder myself as it seemed a bit ageist, personally I would have rather seen a lesser cut across the board of social welfare than a heavy targeted one. FG & Lab have been pushing the message "young people should be working or in education" but surely that applies to everyone on the dole.

And the difference between jobseekers benefit and jobseekers allowance is a very important one. A 24 year old who has been working and paying PRSI since they were 18 and just lost their job is entitled to full benefits, as is right, and indeed they should be paid more than someone who is 30 but who has never worked, not just the same.

gg2

Is this going to be implemented for those already on the live register or just new claiments?

Mykola

Both jobseekers allowance and Jobseekers benifit is being reduced for under 26s

elfy4eva

gg2 wrote: »

Is this going to be implemented for those already on the live register or just new claiments?

New claimants.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

elfy4eva

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And the difference between jobseekers benefit and jobseekers allowance is a very important one. A 24 year old who has been working and paying PRSI since they were 18 and just lost their job is entitled to full benefits, as is right, and indeed they should be paid more than someone who is 30 but who has never worked, not just the same.

I agree, but I don't see why a similar principle shouldn't apply to people older than 25 with no contributions, or those who have long since used up their JSB.

I wouldn't have a problem with these cuts at all if it included those groups. Just seems very targeted and generalizing in my opinion.

Gerry T

Mykola wrote: »

What a load of bollox

While I do think anyone working and made unemployed should get full benefits, irrespective of their age, I do agree with part of what mitosis says. Why should you get unemployment benefit if you leave school and go into 3rd level education, surely you have to be available to work and actively looking for work to get this ?
Is unemployment Benefit means tested ? so an unemployed person or school leaver probably wouldn't get it if living at home where the household has enough money coming in, if not they deserve to get it.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Gerry T

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thanks Fed did just look it up, A school leaver wouldn't get it anyway as they wouldn't have worked up the contributions. Nor would a student as they are not available for work. So I suspect mitosis was talking about jobseeker's allowance and not jobseeker's benefit

spurious

I wouldn't have a problem if it was only a few weeks voluntary work people had to do before getting JSA. The hand out in expectation without ever giving anything back to society is a disgrace.

elfy4eva

Welfare.ie have a pretty good pdf here. with all the facts for those interested.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/budfact14.pdf

johnnyskeleton

Mykola wrote: »

Both jobseekers allowance and Jobseekers benifit is being reduced for under 26s

I haven't heard that, just about the allowance. Do you have a source?

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1015/480560-reduced-jobseekers-allowance-to-be-extended/

mitosis

Mykola wrote: »

What a load of bollox

How do you mean? I don't think I should get benefit a few weeks after leaving school having never worked. Do you think I should?

elfy4eva

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I haven't heard that, just about the allowance. Do you have a source?

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1015/480560-reduced-jobseekers-allowance-to-be-extended/

JSB is unaffected as far as I know but that PDF I linked states.

The reduced rates of Jobseeker’s Allowance will apply to people aged 25 years and under who have exhausted their entitlement to Jobseeker’s Benefit.

Meaning even though they've contributed, they will be cut down to a school leavers rate as soon as the JSB ends.

Magnetics

mitosis wrote: »

How do you mean? I don't think I should get benefit a few weeks after leaving school having never worked. Do you think I should?

What if your folks said they were not going to fund you after the age of 18 and you couldnt get a job?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Magnetics

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree. Let them die of starvation, the useless swines!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

Magnetics wrote: »

What if your folks said they were not going to fund you after the age of 18 and you couldnt get a job?

Should the state really be obliged to take care of every able bodied person who can't get a job? There's always working for yourself, you don't have to wait for Prince Microsoft to sweep you off your feet and land you in a cushy programming job. Especially as there are even now many minimum wage jobs that are not being filled because social welfare payments often make them unattractive to school leavers.

Magnetics

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Should the state really be obliged to take care of every able bodied person who can't get a job? There's always working for yourself, you don't have to wait for Prince Microsoft to sweep you off your feet and land you in a cushy programming job. Especially as there are even now many minimum wage jobs that are not being filled because social welfare payments often make them unattractive to school leavers.

Not being smart here, but where are these jobs? I know plenty of people who have been extremely active in their search for any kind of employment and have yet to find anything

And yes, the state are morally and legally obliged to provide some financial support to someone who can't find a job

serfboard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Especially as there are even now many minimum wage jobs that are not being filled because social welfare payments often make them unattractive to school leavers.

And your evidence for that is what?

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't understand your question.

You seem to be introducing a new set of ideas to the thread / changing the facts / exploiting a stereotype.

hullaballoo

Victor wrote: »

You seem to be introducing a new set of ideas to the thread / changing the facts / exploiting a stereotype.

The measure has been taken by the government clearly with the purpose of tackling the type of situation johnnyskeleton has outlined. It's a sub-set, but that's relevant. I'd hardly call it a new set of ideas.

Grolschevik

hullaballoo wrote: »

The measure has been taken by the government clearly with the purpose of tackling the type of situation johnnyskeleton has outlined. It's a sub-set, but that's relevant. I'd hardly call it a new set of ideas.

I think Victor thought that Johnny was referring specifically to the OP with the "if you've never worked and still live with your folks when you're 24" aside, rather than it being a generic everyman use of 'you'.

johnnyskeleton

Magnetics wrote: »

Not being smart here, but where are these jobs? I know plenty of people who have been extremely active in their search for any kind of employment and have yet to find anything

In shops restaurants and cafés across the country. People want jobs that pay 30k plus. Not that many interested in working 40 hours a week at 8.65 per hour.

But more than that if you can't get someone else to take you on, why can't you do something useful and offer that as a service to other people. There are plenty drains that need cleaning or cheap goods and services for be bought for a nickel and sold for a dime so to speak. Don't waste your life waiting for someone to "give" you a job, and don't follow that up resenting them being your boss. Dedicate yourself to providing a service of value and work hard at it.

And yes, the state are morally and legally obliged to provide some financial support to someone who can't find a job

Why? In morality, why does a society have to pay citizens who contribute nothing useful and who are not incapacitated? Do we need to look after the young, the old and the inform - yes. Do we need to give free money to an able bodied 18/19 year old who isn't doing anything to better him/herself or try to do something useful - no.

In law, the only obligation is the current social welfare regieme. My point is that there is nothing wrong with restricting those laws.

johnnyskeleton

serfboard wrote: »

And your evidence for that is what?

You mean aside from the countless times I've heard employers complaining that they can't get people to work minimum wage jobs or won't go from part time to full time because of the loss of benefits? Well how about the welfare trap? Will an article in a national newspaper help:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/welfare-trap-is-stopping-people-from-taking-jobs-29529657.html

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

You seem to be introducing a new set of ideas to the thread / changing the facts / exploiting a stereotype.

What new ideas, changing facts or exploitation of a stereotype am I guilty of? You asked, in relation to a portion of my beliefs, where it came from which, unless you are taking an extremely Cartesian view of how opinions work, doesn't make sense as a question.

The OP has closed his account and this is perhaps becoming a political discussion, but on the issue of whether it is discrimination to give a 24 year old less Jobseeker's Allowance than a 26 year old I say no, because, unlike jobseekers benefit, they haven't contributed towards it so it is fundamentally free money.

Grolschevik

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why? In morality, why does a society have to pay citizens who contribute nothing useful and who are not incapacitated? Do we need to look after the young, the old and the inform - yes. Do we need to give free money to an able bodied 18/19 year old who isn't doing anything to better him/herself or try to do something useful - no.

You have reduced most of the great debates of 20th century moral and political philosophy to a partisan quasi-libertarian soundbite here.

But this could get way off topic. Your qualifying sentence about what the law says is what is most relevant here.

johnnyskeleton

Grolschevik wrote: »

Most of the great debates of 20th century moral and political philosophy reduced to a partisan quasi-libertarian soundbite.

But this could get way off topic. Your qualifying sentence about what the law says is what is most relevant here.

Ok, well Sinnott v minister for education (always get the spelling wrong) says that it is purely a matter for the oireachtas when the spend does not relate to a constitutional right. I doubt the right to life, the unemunerated rights to dignity or bodily integrity or any other section of the constitution requires the state to pay money to able bodied persons for nothing in return.

Outside of that, it is well established that there can be no constitutional grievance to take away something that isn't yours as of right (eg pok suk shun; M v Murphy).

Finally, I don't think there can be a legitimate expectation of welfare payments if you haven't paid into the system already. Likewise no consideration = no contract.

Again though, it is possible to divine a political slant to each of the above decisions/rules of law. Irish jurisprudence, it is often said, is never fully removed from Irish politics.

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you've never worked and live with your folks at 24

Victor wrote: »

Where are you getting these two bits from?

These changes affect everyone from age 21 to 25, regardless of where they live or what their work history has been, not just people who have never worked or those that live with their parents. Some people age 25 might have 9 years work under their belt and be supporting a family.

You seem to have taken an extreme example and tried to apply it to everyone who will be affected.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

These changes affect everyone from age 21 to 25, regardless of where they live or what their work history has been, not just people who have never worked or those that live with their parents. Some people age 25 might have 9 years work under their belt and be supporting a family.

You seem to have taken an extreme example and tried to apply it to everyone who will be affected.

Try the full quote. Better yet, try stating your own view without trying to mischaracterise and attack other people's.

Cody Pomeray

Johnnyskeleton gives an accurate run down of the law outside of the constitution, I answered the constitutional element already (badly, you say? whatever, bitches).

I would disagree with johnnyskeleton in terms of the moral and economic arguments, insofar as they are known. My opinion is that welfare traps only exist for the older crowd, especially those with children. This is almost totally irrelevant, I regret.

Does the state have the right to pursue apparently ''discriminatory' social protection policies in line with the valid and relevant objective of securing maximum employment?

YES. undoubtedly, yes

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Try the full quote. Better yet, try stating your own view without trying to mischaracterise and attack other people's.

So does anyone know if this is only new claimants or..?


Can't seem to find an answer.

johnnyskeleton

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So does anyone know if this is only new claimants or..?


Can't seem to find an answer.

Only new claimants, only Jobseeker's Allowance, as far as I can tell.

Cody Pomeray

Deleted User wrote: »

So does anyone know if this is only new claimants or..?


Can't seem to find an answer.

From memory, you'd have to narrow your question. The word yesterday was that some current claimants will be disturbed and most will not. Is the person already on the maximum rate?

Grolschevik

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I doubt the right to life, the unemunerated rights to dignity or bodily integrity or any other section of the constitution requires the state to pay money to able bodied persons for nothing in return.
.

Getting purely theoretical now, but the dignity thing could be a runner if we ever had a court that was particularly influenced by Rawls?

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I would disagree with johnnyskeleton in terms of the moral and economic arguments, insofar as they are known. My opinion is that welfare traps only exist for the older crowd, especially those with children. This is almost totally irrelevant, I regret.

One of the interesting moral issues that I've come across is the idea of states or the public having its own constitutional rights. At the moment, the idea that the state has the right to restrict liberties, or that, in the present case, it has the right to refuse payments to people who need/want such payments is considered right wing. Yet it has it's origins in the soviet era attempts to redefine international human rights law with a move away from individual rights and towards the rights of society.

Some would say, and it's a valid position, that the state is obliged to look after it's citizens from the cradle to the grave. I would say that it is the citizens duty to look after the state for as long as they can, and hopefully leave a better state for their children.

Part of that means that no one should get handouts unless they have paid in or unless they cannot contribute to society due to disability. It is considered incorrect to say that people can go out and get jobs, or start a business or dare I say it emigrate, but a responsible person would do that.

So ultimately, I find the idea of morality can be confusing at this time. Obviously I agree with social supports and fairness, but I think at the moment these things are used, at the margins, to create a very unfair system for the rest of us.

elfy4eva

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

From memory, you'd have to narrow your question. The word yesterday was that some current claimants will be disturbed and most will not. Is the person already on the maximum rate?

to quote the welfare.ie pdf I linked earlier

No reductions in weekly social welfare payments for all 1.45 million
current beneficiaries

Grolschevik

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

One of the interesting moral issues that I've come across is the idea of states or the public having its own constitutional rights. At the moment, the idea that the state has the right to restrict liberties, or that, in the present case, it has the right to refuse payments to people who need/want such payments is considered right wing. Yet it has it's origins in the soviet era attempts to redefine international human rights law with a move away from individual rights and towards the rights of society.

Some would say, and it's a valid position, that the state is obliged to look after it's citizens from the cradle to the grave. I would say that it is the citizens duty to look after the state for as long as they can, and hopefully leave a better state for their children.

Part of that means that no one should get handouts unless they have paid in or unless they cannot contribute to society due to disability. It is considered incorrect to say that people can go out and get jobs, or start a business or dare I say it emigrate, but a responsible person would do that.

So ultimately, I find the idea of morality can be confusing at this time. Obviously I agree with social supports and fairness, but I think at the moment these things are used, at the margins, to create a very unfair system for the rest of us.

'From each ... to each ...' does indeed imply reciprocal responsibilities.