Do you think the social welfare system needs to be reviewed?

thecraicaddict

I am 25, have never been unemployed but recently found my self being made redundent. Fortunately I found a new job and have started, however, the role pays monthly and I started a full month before the date we get paid so I am required to work a full month before I recieve any money. I called the social welfare and advised them of this, only to be told that regardless of when you get paid, you get paid until your start date and no further. Now I am left in a position where I will need to ilegally claim benefits for a month or turn down the job which I obviously will not do. I can understand that they do not want people to be paid double but I feel it would make sense to at least loan people money from their start date up until when they get paid. Has anyone here ever been in a situation like this?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Nope thank god, but I'm sure if you declined the job, you'd be entitled to weekly money, subsided rent, a medical card and a Christmas bonus.

Senna

There is a welfare officer (not sure if that's the correct name) that can make payments on a case by case basis, try every other avenue before not accepting the job.

Frynge

As stated the community welfare officer can authorise payments on a case by case basis. Also the fact that you are entitled to job seekers benefit means it should be a very straight forward issue to get your claim started.

Im not encouraging it but there would be very little risk of any fall out should you decide to continue claiming for the 3 to 7 weeks you would have to work before getting paid.

Phoebas

Senna wrote: »

There is a welfare officer (not sure if that's the correct name) that can make payments on a case by case basis, try every other avenue before not accepting the job.

They used to be called Community Welfare Officers, but their role was taken over by the DSP a few years ago.

But the payment (Supplementary Welfare Allowance) remains.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/otheroffice/community-welfare-office-contact.aspx

another36

About 15 years ago I had to do the same thing. No choice couldn't sign off for 3 weeks into a new job. Like yourself it was monthly paid

It was an over payment and I paid it back to them. When I signed off I gave my real start date and I got a letter with the overpayment amount and instructions on how to pay it.

joe swanson

The biggest change needed is to reduce/remove benefits for long term scroungers who have absolutely no desire to work and want everything handed to them. The hardest thing a lot of them done this year is protest against water charges for their subsidised homes.

Funny how a lot of them describe themselves as "working class".

thecraicaddict

joe swanson wrote: »

The biggest change needed is to reduce/remove benefits for long term scroungers who have absolutely no desire to work and want everything handed to them. The hardest thing a lot of them done this year is protest against water charges for their subsidised homes.

Funny how a lot of them describe themselves as "working class".

Hey Joe, Something does need to be done about long term social welfare users. Cutting them off may not be the best option, what do you propose we do with them once they've had their money taken away? What would we then do with all the extra homeless people etc?

joe swanson

thecraicaddict wrote: »

Hey Joe, Something does need to be done about long term social welfare users. Cutting them off may not be the best option, what do you propose we do with them once they've had their money taken away? What would we then do with all the extra homeless people etc?

What I would suggest is a voucher system instead of cash, to be spent on specific items only eg food, fuel, clothing etc. Not to be spent on alcohol, luxuries etc. Would soon focus minds.

LiamoSail

thecraicaddict wrote: »

Hey Joe, Something does need to be done about long term social welfare users. Cutting them off may not be the best option, what do you propose we do with them once they've had their money taken away? What would we then do with all the extra homeless people etc?

Given the majority of the long term unemployed are already in social housing, I'd imagine the increased crime rate would be a more significant consequence than homelessness. Drastically reduced welfare payments aren't going to cause anyone to lose their council home

Sweetemotion

joe swanson wrote: »

What I would suggest is a voucher system instead of cash, to be spent on specific items only eg food, fuel, clothing etc. Not to be spent on alcohol, luxuries etc. Would soon focus minds.

And what if they sell the vouchers?

Sweetemotion

LiamoSail wrote: »

Given the majority of the long term unemployed are already in social housing, I'd imagine the increased crime rate would be a more significant consequence than homelessness. Drastically reduced welfare payments aren't going to cause anyone to lose their council home

Nope it would just let their go hungry.

LiamoSail

joe swanson wrote: »

What I would suggest is a voucher system instead of cash, to be spent on specific items only eg food, fuel, clothing etc. Not to be spent on alcohol, luxuries etc. Would soon focus minds.

For those convicted of welfare fraud and those able but not willing to work long term, I'd agree. I'd be very opposed to such measures though for those unemployed for less than two years and those on disability

joe swanson

Sweetemotion wrote: »

And what if they sell the vouchers?

Ppsn numbers on vouchers, photographic welfare cards to be produced when using same.
Whatever issues arise, im sure there are ways to ensure a secure system.

joe swanson

LiamoSail wrote: »

For those convicted of welfare fraud and those able but not willing to work long term, I'd agree. I'd be very opposed to such measures though for those unemployed for less than two years and those on disability

I agree, but there is a large minority of people for whom living on welfare is a lifestyle/career choice. Its these people im referring to.

Sweetemotion

joe swanson wrote: »

Ppsn numbers on vouchers, photographic welfare cards to be produced when using same.
Whatever issues arise, im sure there are ways to ensure a secure system.

What shops would take these vouchers?

LiamoSail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Nope it would just let their go hungry.

This is the point though, it's putting an onus back on them to help their own situation. It's not down to the taxpayer to facilitate a life of leisure for those who so chose.

I'd emphasise though I'd only be in favour of such cuts in circumstances where the person is able to work but has, over a number of years, proved themselves unwilling. This would allow for increases in those unemployed for short periods, pensions and disability

joe swanson

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What shops would take these vouchers?

Im sure if a voucher system was in place these issues coyld be ironed out., Are you opposed to such a system? And if so, why?

Bongalongherb

joe swanson wrote: »

Ppsn numbers on vouchers, photographic welfare cards to be produced when using same.
Whatever issues arise, im sure there are ways to ensure a secure system.

That would be an illegal thing to do as it's your personal private number, you cannot have that on any voucher.

It would probably work in a dictatorship but not in a democratic country.

Sweetemotion

joe swanson wrote: »

Im sure if a voucher system was in place these issues coyld be ironed out., Are you opposed to such a system? And if so, why?

I am opposed to such a system as its degrading your fellow citizens.

joe swanson

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I am opposed to such a system as its degrading your fellow citizens.

Only those who have no interest in working. Any way if I was that badly off, I would be happy to get help from the state.

Whats degrading is thousands of workers giving their hard earned money to long term scroungers who are laughing all the way to their subsidised housing.

Bongalongherb

joe swanson wrote: »

Only those who have no interest in working. Any way if I was that badly off, I would be happy to get help from the state.

Whats degrading is thousands of workers giving their hard earned money to long term scroungers who are laughing all the way to their subsidised housing.

I'd be more worried about my hard earned cash going to un-guaranteed bondholders to be honest.

Sweetemotion

joe swanson wrote: »

Only those who have no interest in working. Any way if I was that badly off, I would be happy to get help from the state.

Whats degrading is thousands of workers giving their hard earned money to long term scroungers who are laughing all the way to their subsidised housing.

I don't like paying tax either but I don't begrudge anyone on the dole. I know a few people that are really struggling on it.

joe swanson

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I'd be more worried about my hard earned cash going to un-guaranteed bondholders to be honest.

Its like the new godwins,

joe swanson

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I don't like paying tax either but I don't begrudge anyone on the dole. I know a few people that are really struggling on it.

As do i, but if someone is struggling that badly , vouchers are an ideal solution. I am talking about long term scroungers, not some one made redundant and currently seeking employment.

Bongalongherb

joe swanson wrote: »

As do i, but if someone is struggling that badly , vouchers are an ideal solution. I am talking about long term scroungers, not some one made redundant and currently seeking employment.

But wouldn't that be discrimination. If a person is on job-seekers allowance they have to prove they are looking for work, so if they can prove they are seeking employment then they are entitled to the money, that is the rule regarding welfare payments.

LiamoSail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I don't like paying tax either but I don't begrudge anyone on the dole. I know a few people that are really struggling on it.

And this is the problem IMO. Those that are in genuine need shouldn't be left in a situation where they are genuinely struggling, so something needs to change.

The country can't afford to increase spending on welfare, so the remaining option is to look at how it is spent.

There's huge wastage in the welfare system and this breeds resentment as is evidenced by the above suggestion regarding vouchers. I don't necessarily agree with vouchers, but we really need to examine how it is that despite the huge expenditure on welfare, those genuinely in need are not having their needs met.

A welfare system should IMO, provide effective support for those who find themselves out of work, and are seeking new employment. It should look after the more vulnerable in society, and those unable to provide from themselves such as the elderly and those with disabilities. It should not however facilitate those who are unemployed by choice.

I believe our system fails in the above objectives, and in continuing to support those who chose not to work, resources are being taken away from those genuinely in need.

joebloggs32

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I don't like paying tax either but I don't begrudge anyone on the dole. I know a few people that are really struggling on it.

Yes there are many who struggle on it and many more who absolutely play the system. If we could weed out those playing the system then we could provide better services to those who need it.
My neighbour who "doesn't" live next door to me with his kids and partner parks his car at his parents place about five minutes walk away. He does not work, but goes for pints about 4 times a week. On the other hand I work, pay a mortgage for the exact same house, and can afford to go for pints about once or twice a month!

LiamoSail

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I'd be more worried about my hard earned cash going to un-guaranteed bondholders to be honest.

If it didn't, it's likely there would be no welfare as the Government couldn't have gone back in to the bond market wile the IMF wouldn't have lent. The coffers would have been dry

Bongalongherb

I was talking to Willie ODea recently and he is going to push for the implementation of the Basic Living Income, so it will be interesting to see how that works out down the line.

Bongalongherb

LiamoSail wrote: »

If it didn't, it's likely there would be no welfare as the Government couldn't have gone back in to the bond market wile the IMF wouldn't have lent. The coffers would have been dry

That is completely wrong. un-guaranteed bondholders lost their bet, paddy power wouldn't give you your money back if your horse lost the race. Any way, back on topic.

Del2005

Bongalongherb wrote: »

But wouldn't that be discrimination. If a person is on job-seekers allowance they have to prove they are looking for work, so if they can prove they are seeking employment then they are entitled to the money, that is the rule regarding welfare payments.

I know 3 offices that never ask about looking for work when signing on, we have plenty of laws and rules which are completely ignored.

Bongalongherb

Del2005 wrote: »

I know 3 offices that never ask about looking for work when signing on, we have plenty of laws and rules which are completely ignored.

That's strange. When I was unemployed they were hammering me for proof that I was seeking employment and they wanted a lot of letters and e-mails every week. Maybe in the country it might be a bit lax maybe, but in Dublin they are a lot more strict with this.

LiamoSail

Bongalongherb wrote: »

That is completely wrong. un-guaranteed bondholders lost their bet, paddy power wouldn't give you your money back if your horse lost the race. Any way, back on topic.

I agree they lost and in theory shouldn't have been paid, but practically speaking we couldn't have gone back into the bond market and Europe, having us in a corner, threatened not to lend us anymore.

I agree that by right, we should never have paid, but Europe strong armed us in to doing so, making burning them entirely impractical

Penny Tration

Bongalongherb wrote: »

That's strange. When I was unemployed they were hammering me for proof that I was seeking employment and they wanted a lot of letters and e-mails every week. Maybe in the country it might be a bit lax maybe, but in Dublin they are a lot more strict with this.

I think it depends on how long you're on the dole.

I left a job at the end of January. I was awarded JSB backdated to the day after I left the job, no exclusion period because of my reasons for leaving.

Since I got my first payment in March, I've already been hauled into three job fair things (where basically they advertised jobbridge and ce schemes, neither of which I'm eligible for yet), I'm due into an information meeting on Tuesday, another meeting the week after and I'll have to make another meeting on Tuesday to meet with a careers officer (even though I've been in employment since I was 15 so I know full well how to get a job). I've also had to provide proof of the jobs I've applied for and interviewed for.


Then there's my boyfriend's brother. He hasn't worked since 2007, despite having a Masters in a desirable field. He's been called in for one meeting in 9 years.

My cousin, on the dole since he was 18. 25 now, has never been called in. All three of us deal with the same office.

it's only short term claimants that they've cracked down on, and it's only been in recent years.

It should be equal. John who's not worked for 15 years should be required to apply for jobs and go to the meetings, the same as I'm doing.

LiamoSail

Penny Tration wrote: »

I think it depends on how long you're on the dole.

I left a job at the end of January. I was awarded JSB backdated to the day after I left the job, no exclusion period because of my reasons for leaving.

Since I got my first payment in March, I've already been hauled into three job fair things (where basically they advertised jobbridge and ce schemes, neither of which I'm eligible for yet), I'm due into an information meeting on Tuesday, another meeting the week after and I'll have to make another meeting on Tuesday to meet with a careers officer (even though I've been in employment since I was 15 so I know full well how to get a job). I've also had to provide proof of the jobs I've applied for and interviewed for.


Then there's my boyfriend's brother. He hasn't worked since 2007, despite having a Masters in a desirable field. He's been called in for one meeting in 9 years.

My cousin, on the dole since he was 18. 25 now, has never been called in. All three of us deal with the same office.

it's only short term claimants that they've cracked down on, and it's only been in recent years.

It should be equal. John who's not worked for 15 years should be required to apply for jobs and go to the meetings, the same as I'm doing.

I'm only speculating, but perhaps they consider your cousin and brother to be lost causes, and are hence focusing their resources on ensuring the likes of yourself and other recently unemployed don't end up in the long term unemployed category

Bongalongherb

I don't know how they are getting away with not been called in, as everyone now are usually always called in every few weeks for a one to one meeting with their case officer. It seems the longer unemployed are getting no hassle, you would think they would be the first ones to be called in all the time.

Penny Tration

LiamoSail wrote: »

I'm only speculating, but perhaps they consider your cousin and brother to be lost causes, and are hence focusing their resources on ensuring the likes of yourself and other recently unemployed don't end up in the long term unemployed category

I'm assuming as much, but it should still be equal. there's no reason why my cousin or my boyfriend's brother can't be hauled in, put on a ce scheme and therefore have recent work experience on their CV.

Senna

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I don't know how they are getting away with not been called in, as everyone now are usually always called in every few weeks for a one to one meeting with their case officer. It seems the longer unemployed are getting no hassle, you would think they would be the first ones to be called in all the time.

I been on JSB since December, haven't been called in once. There was one jobs fair last week that I was informed of, but didn't go.
Thankfully I have a job now that starts Monday week.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Bongalongherb

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed, the same thing that happened with butter vouchers in the 80's. Folk used to change them for cigarettes.

Del2005

Bongalongherb wrote: »

That's strange. When I was unemployed they were hammering me for proof that I was seeking employment and they wanted a lot of letters and e-mails every week. Maybe in the country it might be a bit lax maybe, but in Dublin they are a lot more strict with this.

One of them is in Dublin. In another they never even asked the person to register with FAS, or whatever its called now.

Gatling

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Indeed, the same thing that happened with butter vouchers in the 80's. Folk used to change them for cigarettes.

I remember the topic came up on pat Kenny programme a few years back ,where the idea of vouchers for the long term unemployed that can't be used or exchanged for alcohol or cigarettes ,
The first to complain was a Vincent de Paul rep who said they idea would effect people's self asteem only for pat Kenny to point the st Vincent s themselves only hand out vouchers to those who contact them for assistance

carzony

In the past I have been unemployed (when I first finished school) and unfortunately I find myself unemployed again for the past few months. Having experienced this situation first hand I would definitely like to see some kind of reform in the system. I have been hounded by the sw for stupid courses, jobbridge and fas courses that you'd never get employment out of.

Here's an idea, Instead of offering people all these things that mean nothing why not actually setup a jobs agency like in the uk and when they call people up actually give them jobs there and then?

Sending long-term unemployed people for an ecdl, first aid, manual handling and other crap courses is not gonna solve anything.

In relation to payments, Your dole should be cut after being unemployed for say 2 years. It should be 100 euro for everyone who is long-term unemployed without a valid reason like health related issues.

Senna

Even monthly returns where everyone claiming dole has to provide receipts for their spending for the month.
If you don't put in a return, your payment is cut by 25% and they would be randomly checked, any discrepancy and payments are stopped.

The current system is open to abuse, I've found employment and the wages aren't bad, but realistically I'm working for less money, child care will probably mean I'm working for the same amount as dole, but take in uniform, travel, etc, then I'm coming out with less.
I can understand why people choose to stay on the dole but the system shouldn't mean working full time leaves a family with less money.

2RockMountain

thecraicaddict wrote: »

I am 25, have never been unemployed but recently found my self being made redundent. Fortunately I found a new job and have started, however, the role pays monthly and I started a full month before the date we get paid so I am required to work a full month before I recieve any money. I called the social welfare and advised them of this, only to be told that regardless of when you get paid, you get paid until your start date and no further. Now I am left in a position where I will need to ilegally claim benefits for a month or turn down the job which I obviously will not do. I can understand that they do not want people to be paid double but I feel it would make sense to at least loan people money from their start date up until when they get paid. Has anyone here ever been in a situation like this?

You could also contact your local Credit Union to get a short term loan that you can pay back once you get paid. Most CUs have a scheme to help people avoid borrowing from moneylenders in tough situations like this.