Equality Fundamental Human Right and our Budget on under 26s

Slydice

I think it looks like the EU should say no to our (draft) Budget because it includes prohibited Age discrimination (prohibited by The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) says that along with Race, Sex and others, that discrimination based on Age shall be prohibited.

Article 21
Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

When we were made to vote on Lisbon a second time and we voted Yes, The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union started applying to us.

So, now we've seen the budget will discriminate payments to Jobseekers based on Age (page 2 on the link).

So, the Vice President of the European Commission Viviane Reding is listed as Guardian of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. On her website, she discusses Fundamental Rights in the EU and says that the Commission has to lead by example on the charter and that all EU Commissioners swore an oath on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.:

The European Commission has to lead by example. To underline this firm intention, on 3 May 2010, for the first time in history, all EU Commissioners swore an oath before the European Court of Justice on both EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Our budget will be sent to the Commission for Review under what they call the "two pack". They can look at it, assess it, give an opinion on it and ask for it to be revised:

the Commission will have the right to assess and, if necessary, issue an opinion on them. The Commission may also ask that these drafts be revised.

So, putting all that together, I think the EU Commission should see that our budget is in breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I think that should put an immediate stop to the process and that the budget should be sent back because of that.

We are discriminating in a bad way. It is wrong. It shouldn't happen to people based on Race, Religion, Sex etc. It shouldn't happen based on age.

The government knows this.

It scrapped the Mobility allowance because it discriminated based on age.


The Taoiseach even acknowledged it:

and the mobility allowance - are illegal, do not conform with the Disability Act, the Equal Status Act and the Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann. We cannot stand over schemes which are obsolete, unfair, discriminatory and do not conform with those Acts and, therefore, we must deal with this.

That part of the budget does not affect me. I think that part of the budget is wrong. I think they should not use that part of the budget. I think they should find some other way of reducing costs or raising money.

If the government targeted black people, muslims, women etc only with that part of the budget, I would also think it would be wrong.

Bad Discrimination is Bad. It's Bad Discrimination.

shanered

I thought the same thing when i heard the.budget, i.have my doubt we.will see.any change.in it, even though it is blatent.age discrimination.
Would love.to see this.challenged.

Scofflaw

OK, the bad news is that what was stated during the Lisbon referendum as being the case is the case - the Charter applies only to EU legislation, and Irish legislation implementing EU decisions.

It does not, therefore, apply to our Budget. That the Commission looks at our Budget as part of the two-pack doesn't make our financial laws EU laws.

To be honest, I doubt this would hold any water anyway - if it did, you'd have to abolish old age pensions on the basis that they're only available to older people, and a whole rake of other targeted reliefs and benefits too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manach

Offhand, that would not fall foul of the EU Fundamental rights.
In that the EU rights treaty has a symbiotic relationship to that of the ECHR one. This allows various exceptions to rights, very few being absolute. One exception is that of proportionality, in this age of Age, due to a legitimate and politician aim. I'd not agree myself with the 26 age restriction, but a government lawyer could make a good case for it.

Cookie_Monster

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be honest, I doubt this would hold any water anyway - if it did, you'd have to abolish old age pensions on the basis that they're only available to older people, and a whole rake of other targeted reliefs and benefits too.

but you either qualify for these or you don't. Your age doesn't restrict you to receiving more or less.

It's blatant discrimination and there is no basis for it. Why 26, why not 19 or 22 or 45?
Of course nothing will be done about it but it's more pathetic rules from a gov dominated by old people who care little for the youth of the country.

micosoft

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but you either qualify for these or you don't. Your age doesn't restrict you to receiving more or less.

It's blatant discrimination and there is no basis for it. Why 26, why not 19 or 22 or 45?
Of course nothing will be done about it but it's more pathetic rules from a gov dominated by old people who care little for the youth of the country.

Because somebody under 26 should be in some form of training or education and not drawing the dole. They had to pick a year so they did. If you think about it every other year is random too - 18 and 65 were just picked as well.

I think this is one of the more effective pieces of social policy I've seen in a long time from the Government. The state has every right to adjust allowances in order to achieve policy aims - in this case to avoid young adults sitting at home drawing the dole when they could be in training. Most social research suggests that it is vital to avoid unemployment in young adults as it becomes progressively harder to get off it once the cycle of unemployment starts.

Address the solid arguments the government has rather then hyperbolic "me rights are being abused"

Cookie_Monster

micosoft wrote: »

Because somebody under 26 should be in some form of training or education and not drawing the dole.

why those under 26 specifically though. Should someone who is 45 be entitled to sit around on the dole rather than having to undertake the same training or education, or are they just a lost cause to the government?

micosoft

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why those under 26 specifically though. Should someone who is 45 be entitled to sit around on the dole rather than having to undertake the same training or education, or are they just a lost cause to the government?

TBH. Yes. The Government is being pragmatic. It's very difficult to retrain 45+ into employable positions that they would accept (typically moving from semi skilled/skilled to service industry jobs).

• Tertiary education traditionally starts at 17-23 but can easily stretch to 26. There is simply no reason for somebody under 26 to have a gap of unemployment instead of being in full time education
• The evidence is that if it is hard to retrain somebody who worked up to their forties - it is possible. It is just about impossible to skill someone who spent their youth on the dole.

So I'm not saying every forty five year should be sitting around but I am realistic about the chances of changing their role. On the other hand, there is NO excuse for under 26 year old's not to be working or in some form of education. Avoiding dealing with that is literally sentencing them to a lifetime of unemployment.

And yes - if education is not their thing better they go abroad and work at un/semi-skilled work in Canada or elsewhere then on benefit here. Better for them even moreso then the country. Nothing cynical with that. Why do you think we have an epidemic of suicide in this country with young men - unemployment is a key indicator of youth male suicide. For their mental health alone they should be doing something.

shanered

With regards to the above point, I think your right in many ways but I really don't think the generalisation of under 26's does justice to your argument.

Where you say there is "NO excuse" for an under 26 year old's to be not working and not in education, I think many under 26 year old's would disagree with you their excuse is the current economic climate, the current political set-up of the civil service and job-bridge scam where young people are being prevented from being hired for a fair wage.
The are other issues like the generation wealth gap between the young and the old in this country, like many sections of our society we look after our own, which is all fine and good, but then it comes to the political scene there iss a huge under representation of young people in Dail Eireann and worse still a decent amount the young ones usually come from family political dynasties which have a yes-sir no-sir attitude to the political arena.

In fairness, you could almost write a book on the reasons why their is an excuse to be unemployed in this country right now and be unemployed and not be in education.
I guess your main argument is why don't they want to upskill, why doesn't a 27-35 year old want ot up skill rather then sit on the dole?
Its the arbitary age that was chosen, which is in my opinion blatant discrimination.
And your response that it is better for people to move abroad, it actually angers me slightly that you can try justify this, while at the very same time make a logical conclusion that it is just better for them to move abroad.
Its because of these very cuts that will be the "straw that will break the camels back" and will be the difineing factor in their emigration.
Leaving your country of birth and residence because of age discrimination is a sorry thing, and I just don't understand how people can justify something like this, but then again I just don't understand why people are so apthetic to governments who continue to destroy this country by driving our youth out.

Slydice

The first part of tonights RTE Programme Prime Time focused on youth unemployment and the policies of giving under 26 year olds lower amounts of money.

It's on the RTE Player here:
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10222228/

From that programme, it seems to me that opportunities for those under 26 (and all others who are unemployed) are constrained. Points were made about difficulties and disadvantage being experienced by those under 26 in seeking jobs due to their lower jobseeker allowance.

On Jobsbridge, those under 25 will be earning €100 + 50 (jobsbridge bonus) = €150 compared to €188 + 50 = €238 for those 26 and over.

The difference is 238 - 150 = 88. Working that out as a percentage 88/150 = .5867 so about 59% extra.

That is a significant disadvantage. That is discrimination on an age basis.



As I said already, The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) says that along with Race, Sex and others, that discrimination based on Age shall be prohibited.

This starts (or the current situation for them gets worse) in January.

It is wrong.

Slydice

I think this is, at least, tangentaly related mainly because it is the EU Commission refering us to the European Court of Justice regarding our treatment of junior doctors. I'd be guessing that the majority of Junior Doctors are young people.

Working time: Commission refers Ireland to Court for not respecting EU rules in public health services
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1109_en.htm

The European Commission has decided to refer Ireland to the EU's Court of Justice for not complying with the EU rules on limits to working time for doctors in public health services. In particular, Ireland fails to ensure that in practice these doctors work no more than 48 hours per week on average, including any overtime.

Irish national law respects the requirements of the EU's Working Time Directive by providing for limits to doctors’ working time. However, in practice public hospitals often do not apply the rules to doctors in training or other non-consultant hospital doctors. There are still numerous cases where junior doctors are regularly required to work continuous 36-hour shifts, to work over 100 hours in a single week and 70-75 hours per week on average, and to continue working without adequate breaks for rest or sleep.

micosoft

Slydice wrote: »

I think this is, at least, tangentaly related

That's some tangent. This has nothing to do at all with the topic you started - you seem to be trying to fit the legislation/news to your personal viewpoint on the issue of reduced welfare rates for under 26 year olds.

For a dose of reality the rate for under 25 year olds in the UK is £50.95 rising to the munificent 64.30 over 25. Many other European countries have a similar setup.That many other European countries do this would suggest that your particular interpretation of The Charter of Fundamental rights is incorrect.

As to whether it's fair - that's an opinion. You clearly don't. Others such as myself and the Government think it is in the policy context of persuading the young to remain in Education. Many other European countries agree. Lobby your TD if you disagree as it's a political not legal decision.

Carawaystick

micosoft wrote: »

TBH. Yes.

• Tertiary education traditionally starts at 17-23 but can easily stretch to 26. There is simply no reason for somebody under 26 to have a gap of unemployment instead of being in full time education
  

So, do your leavin aged 17, finish a 4 year degree, work for 4 years.get professional certifications along the way
Company goes wallop


You should now work for 3.75 an hour in a bull**** job, or sign up for fulltime education( who's gonna pay for that?) and if a job comes up do you just write off the rest of your masters?
And you just signed a one year lease where the rent is more than the dole per week, eating yer savings rapidly.
And you get a cut and it gets infected, but you tough it out for a while until you have to go to a doc and get a scrip for an antibiotic.
There's more than half your dole gone, before rent or eating

Meanwhile Michael Noonan, a daycent skin who hounded Brigid McCole to her death, pays income tax on a lower amount and at a lower rate, cos he's an auld fella