Entitlement Culture killing the will to work in Ireland

AlekSmart

Potatoeman wrote: »

Most people dont begrudge giving others a helping hand but its pretty clear there are major problems.
Welfare should decrease overtime and not increase. Even a minimum wage job should be more attactive than benefits. Most people here are moaning about half of their overtime and bonuses being taken. These are earned through working extra hours on top of the normal work week.

What is not often acknowledged is the fact that "Ordinary" workers now have a universal Income Cap imposed upon them via the Working Time Directive.

This piece of legislation,which has rebounded rather spectacularly upon its Trades Union based supporters limits ALL employed persons to an average of 48 hours work over a given period (between 17 and 26 weeks)

What many fail to appreciate however,is that the strictures of the Working Time Act apply to an individuals total working time across ALL employments.

This means that the time-honoured means for an employed individual to "better themselves" or "Improve their lot" by working harder or longer is deemed Illegal in modern Ireland.

It is my belief that any country which is prepared to devote such resources into PREVENTING workers from WORKING is being run by people with no real understanding of how stuff works out here in RealWorldland....
.

Gumbo

chopper6 wrote: »

Has anybody else heard talk of the PS Pension Levy being withdrawn?

Nope, heard nothing, they will probably just absorb it into one payment or something.

jimb43

Potatoeman wrote: »

Most people dont begrudge giving others a helping hand but its pretty clear there are major problems.
Welfare should decrease overtime and not increase. Even a minimum wage job should be more attactive than benefits. Most people here are moaning about half of their overtime and bonuses being taken. These are earned through working extra hours on top of the normal work week.

Your wrong, most people do begrudge, most people on here are all banging on about how its not fair for them to be working and someone on the social gets more than them ( and in a way i can understand that "that is definitely not right/ or fair, but ……. you say even a minimum wage job , should be more than attractive. i say show me a job that will pay me anything "less than the minimum " i will take it . THE REALITY IS THERE ISNT ANY. minimum , or under minimum, the social have come up with this crap JOBBRIDGE, witch is just a clever little way of manipulating the unemployment figures. any half decent job that would be a good job for someone to support there family has been taken away(taken advantage of by the employer who just pays them 50 euro for a 40 hour week.) that is worse in my mind than the foreigners coming here and working for peanuts ( i would like to stress that i have nothing against foreigners, anyone who leaves there country and goes hundreds of miles to better them selves ) I'm just comparing the 2 scenarios, jobridge/ and peanuts..

i say good luck to ya if you have a job, and even more good luck to ya if you have a choice for overtime, but don't be crying about the government taxing you more , be grateful you have a choice, be grateful you have a job.

Gumbo

jimb43 wrote: »

Your wrong, most people do begrudge, most people on here are all banging on about how its not fair for them to be working and someone on the social gets more than them ( and in a way i can understand that "that is definitely not right/ or fair, but ……. you say even a minimum wage job , should be more than attractive. i say show me a job that will pay me anything "less than the minimum " i will take it . THE REALITY IS THERE ISNT ANY. minimum , or under minimum, the social have come up with this crap JOBBRIDGE, witch is just a clever little way of manipulating the unemployment figures. any half decent job that would be a good job for someone to support there family has been taken away(taken advantage of by the employer who just pays them 50 euro for a 40 hour week.) that is worse in my mind than the foreigners coming here and working for peanuts ( i would like to stress that i have nothing against foreigners, anyone who leaves there country and goes hundreds of miles to better them selves ) I'm just comparing the 2 scenarios, jobridge/ and peanuts..

i say good luck to ya if you have a job, and even more good luck to ya if you have a choice for overtime, but don't be crying about the government taxing you more , be grateful you have a choice, be grateful you have a job.

minimum wage jobs are not attractive enough to invite Irish people off the dole and into them. Dunnes constantly take on new staff, as do Tesco and i believe these both pay over minimum wage. Although im not promoting these guys to work for, if i had to take the job as a bridge while out of work i would.

jimb43

and,,,,,, your point being ??

jimb43

The way i see it , is the word ATTRACTIVE, doesn't/ and shouldn't even come into it.

jimb43

a job is a job, my point is those of you ( I'm not directing this at you personally ) but those of you who have a job should be grateful, and stop banging on about the social welfare system. stop banging on about how unfair it is ( even though it is ) that you are getting taxed more when you do overtime. As there a re thousands of people who wish they were in a job and able to work 40 hour a week never mind overtime

jimb43

jimb43 wrote: »

a job is a job, my point is those of you ( I'm not directing this at you personally ) but those of you who have a job should be grateful, and stop banging on about the social welfare system. stop banging on about how unfair it is ( even though it is ) that you are getting taxed more when you do overtime. As there a re thousands of people who wish they were in a job and able to work 40 hour a week never mind overtime

don't forget this thread is /and was about the THE ENTITLEMENT CULTURE, AND WILL TO WORK , which is a direct attack on people who are on the dole.

i do agree though and I'm not ever going to defend anyone who does take the pi@@, and use the system and there are a few to be fair but ,,,,,,,, well we could be blue in the face with this for ever.

jimb43

golfwallah wrote: »

Ahhh, yes, in theory at least, public servants can be sacked (or more correctly, made redundant), but this seems not to happen in practice.

The French Government, under Francois Mitterrand as far back as 1982, had the power to dismiss heads of nationalised industries.

After 2 years in power and despite all the talk of reform, our own Brendan Howlin is only thinking about bringing in powers to sack bad public servants – but these reforms are on hold until 2016:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/brendan-howlin-sanctions-firing-of-bad-civil-servants-but-reforms-on-hold-until-2016-29903865.html

Meanwhile, the taxpayer is being screwed with higher and higher taxes and now water charges (the head of Irish Water, it seems, can’t be sacked either).

There are some Civil Servants who i could name personally who are a complete disgrace to this country, and ide line them up and shoot them if i could , they don't even deserve the luxury of being sacked, the social welfare system is a kgb run set up. it operates how it likes , it makes unfounded accusations but its allowed to make "certified refusals" to people which creates untold hardship . They don't give a Shi@ if you have money to survive or not. you would starve for them .

You have the right to appeal those decisions ( made by the kgb staff at the job centres ) , which takes 6 months to be heard bye the Gistapo ( the social welfare appeals officers ) who are supposed to be independent to the kgb , BUT THEYRE NOT..

This country is taking the PIS@ out of us all and you know what ?????

It is my opinion that " its our own fault for letting them" no one does anything
We all talk about it and how out of order they are but no one actually does anything ( I'm just as guilty as I'm writing it right now ) i just wish we could all somehow get together and sack the effi@ lot of them .

golfwallah

jimb43 wrote: »

Your wrong, most people do begrudge, most people on here are all banging on about how its not fair for them to be working and someone on the social gets more than them ( and in a way i can understand that "that is definitely not right/ or fair, but ……. you say even a minimum wage job , should be more than attractive. i say show me a job that will pay me anything "less than the minimum " i will take it . THE REALITY IS THERE ISNT ANY. minimum , or under minimum, the social have come up with this crap JOBBRIDGE, witch is just a clever little way of manipulating the unemployment figures. any half decent job that would be a good job for someone to support there family has been taken away(taken advantage of by the employer who just pays them 50 euro for a 40 hour week.) that is worse in my mind than the foreigners coming here and working for peanuts ( i would like to stress that i have nothing against foreigners, anyone who leaves there country and goes hundreds of miles to better them selves ) I'm just comparing the 2 scenarios, jobridge/ and peanuts..

i say good luck to ya if you have a job, and even more good luck to ya if you have a choice for overtime, but don't be crying about the government taxing you more , be grateful you have a choice, be grateful you have a job.

I can understand that an unemployed person can be angry at the system from the personal viewpoint – just as angry, perhaps, as working people are at the high levels of taxes they have to pay.

I also appreciate that anyone on unemployment benefit can become despondent and critical of government schemes to get people back to work – if their personal circumstances make that particular scheme difficult to avail of. That being said, I think your general conclusions about Jobbridge (which provides opportunities to gain marketable work experience) are not borne out by the facts.

Independent evaluation by consultancy firm Indicon has put placement from Jobbridge at 60%:
http://www.jobbridge.ie/toolkit/IndeconReport.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT7GOYxyy8o

I’m no great fan of Minister Joan Burton, and accept that the Jobbridge scheme is not perfect, but it is giving people job opportunities that they wouldn’t otherwise have.

I also find it difficult to believe that there are no jobs out there – even at minimum wage. It may not be easy or the job mightn’t be exactly what you want but I’m quite sure you could get one, if you set about it in a positive frame of mind.

K-9

jimb43 wrote: »

There are some Civil Servants who i could name personally who are a complete disgrace to this country, and ide line them up and shoot them if i could , they don't even deserve the luxury of being sacked, the social welfare system is a kgb run set up. it operates how it likes , it makes unfounded accusations but its allowed to make "certified refusals" to people which creates untold hardship . They don't give a Shi@ if you have money to survive or not. you would starve for them .

You have the right to appeal those decisions ( made by the kgb staff at the job centres ) , which takes 6 months to be heard bye the Gistapo ( the social welfare appeals officers ) who are supposed to be independent to the kgb , BUT THEYRE NOT..

This country is taking the PIS@ out of us all and you know what ?????

It is my opinion that " its our own fault for letting them" no one does anything
We all talk about it and how out of order they are but no one actually does anything ( I'm just as guilty as I'm writing it right now ) i just wish we could all somehow get together and sack the effi@ lot of them .

From the Charter for the forum:

Certain standards of debate are expected, and will be enforced. Your posts must contribute to debate, not derail it or drag it into mob chanting. There's been a serious decrease in the signal to noise ratio in the forum recently, and that trend requires reversal.

If your posts consists of little more than a statement that some group of people or other are bad people and/or deserve prison/execution as traitors, think long and hard before pressing "submit", because we'll be treating that as trolling from here on in.

That's enough of these type of posts thank you.

jimb43

ok fair enough

ressem

golfwallah wrote: »

Independent evaluation by consultancy firm Indicon has put placement from Jobbridge at 60%:
http://www.jobbridge.ie/toolkit/IndeconReport.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT7GOYxyy8o

I’m no great fan of Minister Joan Burton, and accept that the Jobbridge scheme is not perfect, but it is giving people job opportunities that they wouldn’t otherwise have.

Where does 60% come from? Of respondents 51.4% say that they had found (perm/temp/part-time) employment. (2300 responses from 4401 surveys distributed to the control group. 7058 completed internships). (Table 6.3, Table 3.28)
The social welfare database has less flattering numbers. Going directly into employment 19.5 with host. 16.8 with other.

How does that tally with table 3.17 ( page 57) on the Indicon report of the survey of Jobsbridge Host Organisations.
18.7% of interns were offered paid employment by the host
16.8% were offered paid employment in an organisation other than the host.

31.9% of intern respondents believe that they were fairly/highly likely to have secured employment without jobsbridge.

Table 5.3 says that 35.1% of private/ semistate respondents would have considered taking a paid employee, and the report's author believes only 3% of internships displaced a paid employee.

Table 5.4 says 29% would have been likely to offer paid employment in the absence of the jobsbridge scheme.

golfwallah

ressem wrote: »

Where does 60% come from? Of respondents 51.4% say that they had found (perm/temp/part-time) employment. (2300 responses from 4401 surveys distributed to the control group. 7058 completed internships). (Table 6.3, Table 3.28)
The social welfare database has less flattering numbers. Going directly into employment 19.5 with host. 16.8 with other.

How does that tally with table 3.17 ( page 57) on the Indicon report of the survey of Jobsbridge Host Organisations.
18.7% of interns were offered paid employment by the host
16.8% were offered paid employment in an organisation other than the host.

31.9% of intern respondents believe that they were fairly/highly likely to have secured employment without jobsbridge.

Table 5.3 says that 35.1% of private/ semistate respondents would have considered taking a paid employee, and the report's author believes only 3% of internships displaced a paid employee.

Table 5.4 says 29% would have been likely to offer paid employment in the absence of the jobsbridge scheme.

According to the Executive Summary of the Indicon Report:

While the figures on percentages in employment for those who finished their internships less than one month ago are similar to those from the Department of Social Protection’s JobBridge database, the results show that after a short period of time employment rates among scheme participants have increased, with an employment rate of 61.4% evident among participants who completed over five months previously

However, the minute details of the Indicon Report or the Department’s database are not really the point of my post, which was to counter the negative assertions about no jobs being out there and about Jobbridge:

THE REALITY IS THERE ISNT ANY. minimum , or under minimum, the social have come up with this crap JOBBRIDGE

Look, the whole thrust of this thread is about a defeatist culture of total welfare dependency as a preferred choice of lifestyle to working for a living.

As long as such easy welfare choices are made available and provide an often better lifestyle than can be afforded by working people, there will be more people on welfare than there should be. And this unnecessary spending has to be financed by the taxpayer!

At the end of the day, the aims of initiatives like Jobbridge are

to provide those seeking employment with the opportunity to gain work experience, maintain close links with the labour market and enhance their skills and competencies through an internship opportunity, thereby improving their prospects of securing employment in the future

No it's not a cure for unemployment and is but one government initiative to get people back to work - and, however imperfect it may be, it can't be all bad!

OldNotWIse

jimb43 wrote: »

Your wrong, most people do begrudge, most people on here are all banging on about how its not fair for them to be working and someone on the social gets more than them ( and in a way i can understand that "that is definitely not right/ or fair, but ……. you say even a minimum wage job , should be more than attractive. i say show me a job that will pay me anything "less than the minimum " i will take it . THE REALITY IS THERE ISNT ANY. minimum , or under minimum, the social have come up with this crap JOBBRIDGE, witch is just a clever little way of manipulating the unemployment figures. any half decent job that would be a good job for someone to support there family has been taken away(taken advantage of by the employer who just pays them 50 euro for a 40 hour week.) that is worse in my mind than the foreigners coming here and working for peanuts ( i would like to stress that i have nothing against foreigners, anyone who leaves there country and goes hundreds of miles to better them selves ) I'm just comparing the 2 scenarios, jobridge/ and peanuts..

i say good luck to ya if you have a job, and even more good luck to ya if you have a choice for overtime, but don't be crying about the government taxing you more , be grateful you have a choice, be grateful you have a job.

This annoys me.

A Scoundrel

golfwallah wrote: »

Look, the whole thrust of this thread is about a defeatist culture of total welfare dependency as a preferred choice of lifestyle to working for a living.

Don't you think it's a terribly grand co-incidence that this 'defeatist culture of total welfare dependency' arose about the same time as a large GDP shock from 2009?

Welfare transfers have been cut over the recent period, and suddenly welfare has become more attractive. Do you see why people are skeptical of this narrative?

As long as such easy welfare choices are made available and provide an often better lifestyle than can be afforded by working people

How "often", please? The ESRI puts the figure at about 6%

No it's not a cure for unemployment and is but one government initiative to get people back to work - and, however imperfect it may be, it can't be all bad!

You're assuming that at worst, it is passive, that it's not doing any harm. If it is displacing real jobs, then it is causing actual harm, and it is yet to be determined whether there is any net benefits attached to the Job Bridge scheme.

I disagree with those who write off Job Bridge without considering the advantages it provides. However, those who do not consider the possible harm that Job Bridge is doing, and who are so naive to believe the scheme is not being abused, are even worse.

Icepick

OldNotWIse wrote: »

This annoys me.

Forget education, skills and your attitude at work. It's all a coin flip.:rolleyes:

golfwallah

@ A Scoundrel:
Sure, there is a correlation between the economic downturn and growth in welfare payments but it can’t all be explained by this factor – even Minister Burton admits this (that welfare as a lifestyle choice is an issue) – with headlines like “One in seven people on social welfare in Ireland have never worked”:
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/one-in-seven-people-on-social-welfare-in-ireland-have-never-worked-208115901-237590751.html

http://www.herald.ie/news/one-in-seven-people-drawing-the-dole-has-never-had-a-job-29280893.html


It’s the size of the social welfare budget and how it is being paid for (through high taxes today and borrowings to be repaid by our children and grand children tomorrow) that should concern us most:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026476.shtml


Also “Just 3% of dole recipients ‘better off’ without a job” – but whether 3% or 6% (from your ESRI figures) of a very large spend – it still comes to a lot of money:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/just-3-of-dole-recipients-better-off-without-a-job-1.1568724

It’s easy to describe "just" 3% or 6% as small amounts when it’s other people’s money you are talking about – and this kind of attitude and resultant waste of taxpayers’ money is endemic throughout the public service, in my experience.

As regards Jobbridge, I don’t believe it is replacing jobs or being abused on a grand scale as you seem to be implying. Quite the contrary, it is providing otherwise unemployed people with opportunities and reducing the risks of new recruitment for employers during poor market conditions.

Proustian

While one sympathises with anyone who loses a job, the mindset of others is often breathtaking.

In this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057139784 the OP says if she moves to ireland she will "get" rent allowance of €240 per week and a further €300 form the social welfare. If it's true shame on the Irish welfare system which encourages this sort of "welfare tourism".

More revealing, and the whole tone of the thread (even one moderator who issues dire warning to anyone who might even question it) is the assumption that this is normal and should not even be questioned.

It seems that the attitude still prevails in Ireland that the governments money is unlimited and up for grabs for anyone, and not really anyone's money. The sooner the attitude changes to understand that the government has no money, and it is our money it is spending, the better for Ireland.

However, as many politicians seem to have the same attitude, it's unlikely to change any time soon and welfare dependency will continue to be not only encouraged but made so financially rewarding that foreigners are attracted to Ireland to "get" rent allowances and "get" welfare payments, then, perhaps, the country is doomed, financially.

Why do Irish people put up with this sort of thing , which seems to be tacitly encouraged even by some boards monitors.

Idbatterim

While one sympathises with anyone who loses a job, the mindset of others is often breathtaking.

In this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2057139784 the OP says if she moves to ireland she will "get" rent allowance of €240 per week and a further €300 form the social welfare. If it's true shame on the Irish welfare system which encourages this sort of "welfare tourism".

getting rid of Labour is the first step to ending this! If we had FG and a coalition of like minded independents that is. It seems the only party that are prepared to do anything about welfare is FG, correct me if I'm wrong...

sarumite

Idbatterim wrote: »

getting rid of Labour is the first step to ending this! If we had FG and a coalition of like minded independents that is. It seems the only party that are prepared to do anything about welfare is FG, correct me if I'm wrong...

Certainly, I can see that point being valid on an Irish economy forum. However, a government also legislates on social reform which are also important. Personally I think FG are totally backwards in terms of their social policies. Having Labour in government means that FG can't just dig its heals in avoid making changes the Catholic church doesn't like.

K-9

Proustian wrote: »

While one sympathises with anyone who loses a job, the mindset of others is often breathtaking.

In this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057139784 the OP says if she moves to ireland she will "get" rent allowance of €240 per week and a further €300 form the social welfare. If it's true shame on the Irish welfare system which encourages this sort of "welfare tourism".

More revealing, and the whole tone of the thread (even one moderator who issues dire warning to anyone who might even question it) is the assumption that this is normal and should not even be questioned.

It seems that the attitude still prevails in Ireland that the governments money is unlimited and up for grabs for anyone, and not really anyone's money. The sooner the attitude changes to understand that the government has no money, and it is our money it is spending, the better for Ireland.

However, as many politicians seem to have the same attitude, it's unlikely to change any time soon and welfare dependency will continue to be not only encouraged but made so financially rewarding that foreigners are attracted to Ireland to "get" rent allowances and "get" welfare payments, then, perhaps, the country is doomed, financially.

Why do Irish people put up with this sort of thing , which seems to be tacitly encouraged even by some boards monitors.

Perceived issues with moderation of other forums on boards isn't for the Irish Economy section of boards, either pm the mod involved to clarify any perceptions or start a thread in Feedback.

A Scoundrel

golfwallah wrote: »

@ A Scoundrel:
Sure, there is a correlation between the economic downturn and growth in welfare payments but it can’t all be explained by this factor – even Minister Burton admits this (that welfare as a lifestyle choice is an issue) – with headlines like “One in seven people on social welfare in Ireland have never worked”:

The fact that a significant proportion of the unemployed have never worked does not mean they choose it as a lifestyle. That figure incorporates new graduates and other young people who simply happened to live in the wrong place at the wrong time, it says nothing of their personal motivations.

It’s the size of the social welfare budget and how it is being paid for (through high taxes today and borrowings to be repaid by our children and grand children tomorrow) that should concern us most:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026476.shtml

Welfare is a very broad term. You've been discussing the unemployed. It's worth bearing in mind that Jobseeker's Allowance is 15% of the welfare budget. The biggest beneficiaries of the welfare budget are OAPs, not jobseekers.

pwurple

A Scoundrel wrote: »

Welfare is a very broad term. You've been discussing the unemployed. It's worth bearing in mind that Jobseeker's Allowance is 15% of the welfare budget. The biggest beneficiaries of the welfare budget are OAPs, not jobseekers.

The % of OAPs is only going to get bigger. Our demographics suggest that the largest group was born in the baby boom of the 80's? Currently in their 30's, trying to have children themselves (who in 30 years would be contributing tax to support their parents), but are being effectively being discouraged from doing so by current policy.

I'm a working pregnant woman, who, despite paying PRSI at the highest rate for the last 15 years, just had my maternity benefit cut (mid-pregnancy), while those who have never paid PRSI, or paid the minimum amount, just had their benefit increased. What kind of completely messed up policy is that? What is my PRSI even for? I will now work out with less net income for the length of my maternity leave than someone who has not paid tax, because I will go out and work the rest of the year, and the benefit is taxed. It's utterly stupid policies like this which make working taxpayers think about chucking in jobs, because they will do better without one.

srsly78

What's this "highest rate" of prsi? Pretty much everyone pays the same flat rate. Only exceptions come into it with regard to what your employer pays or not. If it makes you feel any better I know some people in receipt of a pension (<65) that also pay prsi.

Icepick

srsly78 wrote: »

What's this "highest rate" of prsi? Pretty much everyone pays the same flat rate. Only exceptions come into it with regard to what your employer pays or not. If it makes you feel any better I know some people in receipt of a pension (<65) that also pay prsi.

How much you pay should matter.
It's obscene that you can pay much more in PRSI than someone else and be entitled to much less.

pwurple

srsly78 wrote: »

What's this "highest rate" of prsi? Pretty much everyone pays the same flat rate. Only exceptions come into it with regard to what your employer pays or not. If it makes you feel any better I know some people in receipt of a pension (<65) that also pay prsi.

PRSI classes and rates available here:
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Summary-of-PRSI-Classes-2014.aspx

Yeah, I don't think there are many pregnant pensioners.

Geuze

pwurple wrote: »

I'm a working pregnant woman, who, despite paying PRSI at the highest rate for the last 15 years, just had my maternity benefit cut (mid-pregnancy), while those who have never paid PRSI, or paid the minimum amount, just had their benefit increased. What kind of completely messed up policy is that? What is my PRSI even for? I will now work out with less net income for the length of my maternity leave than someone who has not paid tax, because I will go out and work the rest of the year, and the benefit is taxed. It's utterly stupid policies like this which make working taxpayers think about chucking in jobs, because they will do better without one.

I agree.

Welfare should be for workers.

You work more and paid more PRSI, you should get a bigger un payment or State pension.

You never paid PRSI means you should get lower payments (or none).

Geuze

srsly78 wrote: »

What's this "highest rate" of prsi? Pretty much everyone pays the same flat rate. Only exceptions come into it with regard to what your employer pays or not. If it makes you feel any better I know some people in receipt of a pension (<65) that also pay prsi.

Class A rate = 4%, paid by most workers

Class D rate = 0.9%, I think. That's paid by public servants hired pre-April 1995.

Idbatterim

I'm a working pregnant woman, who, despite paying PRSI at the highest rate for the last 15 years, just had my maternity benefit cut (mid-pregnancy), while those who have never paid PRSI, or paid the minimum amount, just had their benefit increased. What kind of completely messed up policy is that?

Thats "fairness" Irish style, pathetic! When the politicians come knocking, I want answers to questions like these! A welfare cap would certainly make the leeches think twice about having more kids, as in theory they would have less for themselves... Any chance of real and meaningful reform being forced from the outside is long gone and I cant see it happening from the inside... With an election looming I can only see cuts by stealth, i.e. leaving rates as are and letting inflation devalue them. I see Labour are already pledging to cut the property tax in a FF esque cast the next wide and far vote steal ploy...