Turas Nua, Beware, understand what you may be getting into.

MouseTail

Kk333 wrote: »

It includes jobspath. Which is condidered an activation scheme. Clearly outlined in the link i provided. Where is ye re link to evidence countering me? .

The link to my evidence is the same link as yours. Read the Annex.

blowin3

Do you have to sign their PPP or contract. I was with them last Dec. was cut off from welfare in Feb as I was getting good hours from work but have to go back on X and Os due to hours being cut. I got a phone call today saying I have to attend an induction meeting next week.

Kk333

MouseTail wrote: »

The link to my evidence is the same link as yours. Read the Annex.

Good man thanks for proving my point. It clearly states activation programmes which is what jobspath is described as on welfare own website. If it wasn't tax dodgers Doherty would have pit it to bed already as this has been well known for awhile now.

Kk333

splinter65 wrote: »

If someone turns up for their first TN meeting and says “ I can’t look for full time work because I’m suffering from crippling depression and anxiety “ or “I can’t look for full time work because I’m parenting alone with 2 pre school kids” or “I’m not looking for full time work because my pre teen kids are at school and I’ve no one to pick them up” or “ I’m not looking for full time work because I’m caring full time for my elderly mother who has dementia” then you don’t need much of a Leaving Cert to come to the conclusion that they shouldn’t be getting “Jobseekers”. Do you?

So you can diagnose depression and anxiety by someone telling you they have it. Wow You should right a piece for the journal of clinical psychiatry. You take everyone on face value like that. No wonder the country is f××ked

splinter65

Kk333 wrote: »

So you can diagnose depression and anxiety by someone telling you they have it. Wow You should right a piece for the journal of clinical psychiatry. You take everyone on face value like that. No wonder the country is f××ked

You absolutely do not understand anything about Jobseekers.
In order to qualify for Jobseekers you must be :
1. Fit for
2.Available for
3.Looking for
Full time work.
Those are some of the conditions you have to meet to get a Jobseekers payment.
If someone is referred to TN and they walk in and say to a member of staff “I can’t work because I’m too sick” then TN must tell SW because that person is not eligible for Jobseekers.
That person has disqualified themselves from Jobseekers by declaring that they are not “fit for work”. That person should be on Disabilty Allowance.
The same applies to the other scenarios I described.
Do you understand now?

fin12

splinter65 wrote: »

If someone turns up for their first TN meeting and says “ I can’t look for full time work because I’m suffering from crippling depression and anxiety “ or “I can’t look for full time work because I’m parenting alone with 2 pre school kids” or “I’m not looking for full time work because my pre teen kids are at school and I’ve no one to pick them up” or “ I’m not looking for full time work because I’m caring full time for my elderly mother who has dementia” then you don’t need much of a Leaving Cert to come to the conclusion that they shouldn’t be getting “Jobseekers”. Do you?

Why would anyone say those things at the meetings, everyone knows when you are getting the dole you say you are looking for full time work whether you are genuine or not is another thing.

And I don’t see how being forced to go to a half an hour meeting every two weeks would actually push someone to get a job who is quite happy staying on the dole. They can say all the right things, show evidence of searching for jobs, attend their meetings while still having no intention of ever getting a job.

splinter65

fin12 wrote: »

Why would anyone say those things at the meetings, everyone knows when you are getting the dole you say you are looking for full time work whether you are genuine or not is another thing.

And I don’t see how being forced to go to a half an hour meeting every two weeks would actually push someone to get a job who is quite happy staying on the dole. They can say all the right things, show evidence of searching for jobs, attend their meetings while still having no intention of ever getting a job.

People arrive at Turas Nua and say these things every day.
Not everyone on the dole knows how to play the game.

fin12

splinter65 wrote: »

People arrive at Turas Nua and say these things every day.
Not everyone on the dole knows how to play the game.

Well I would love to see Turas Nua statics on how many long term unemployed ( and that being classed at someone who’s claiming dole over a year) people they get jobs for cause as far as I’m concerned the only people getting jobs are people who have just come out of employment or people who are working part time and don’t need their services. in my time with them I never came across one person who was on the dole long term. So have you seen fellas who have been on the dole 20 years and Turas Nua getting them full time employment? And if it’s anyones playing a game it’s Turas Nua.

1st question at a job interview would be if they were desperate enough to let you get that far as opposed to binning your cv would be so what have you been doing the the last 10 -20 years. It would want to be some answer to get the job.

I don't care what sector you work in or want to work in a gap of that magnitude in employment no matter how many courses and activation schemes the DSP have you on means you'll likely never have gainful employment in this life time.

People have their reasons and issues and some just don't want to work but for those trapped in this with a massive gap on a cv and costing the tax payer on the double in terms of the dole and the schemes what is the solution? Keep sending them on more courses and activation schemes when they can't compete with someone who's been unemployed a few weeks or months?

Even if you solve the underlying issues these folk have which are likely addiction based in some form or mental health ones like depression how do you get them to a point where a large gap in employment won't be an issue in even securing an interview?

Government's action on putting them in these activation schemes is not only costly but pointless as it doesn't solve their biggest issue ie: reason for being so long terms unemployed.

TLDR: You can't be that long unemployed and either not want to work or have some serious issues.

Quadrivium

blowin3 wrote: »

Do you have to sign their PPP or contract. I was with them last Dec. was cut off from welfare in Feb as I was getting good hours from work but have to go back on X and Os due to hours being cut. I got a phone call today saying I have to attend an induction meeting next week.

No you do not, regardless of what they say there can be no compulsion in forming a contract. It must be entered into freely, you can refuse to sign any contact but you must turn up to their meetings as that is a separate issue and is classed as "engaging" if you turn up but refuse to sign the contract then the DSP can not stop our payment. Stick to your guns and remember these people in Seetec are just a private company who get paid for your signature, it's up to you if you want to sign up to their service for 52 weeks or not, but remember they won't let you access any other employment services such courses or the BTEA etc. if you sign with them.

Nomis21

The contract they ask you to sign is a legal document. You are entitled to show it to a solicitor before agreeing to sign it. I can imagine that most solicitors would advise against signing such a document and you cannot be expected to ignore legal advice.

Wanderer78

What's the story with gdpr and turas Nua, can people ask for their stored data to be permanently destroyed?

fin12

Quadrivium wrote: »

No you do not, regardless of what they say there can be no compulsion in forming a contract. It must be entered into freely, you can refuse to sign any contact but you must turn up to their meetings as that is a separate issue and is classed as "engaging" if you turn up but refuse to sign the contract then the DSP can not stop our payment. Stick to your guns and remember these people in Seetec are just a private company who get paid for your signature, it's up to you if you want to sign up to their service for 52 weeks or not, but remember they won't let you access any other employment services such courses or the BTEA etc. if you sign with them.

I never knew you had an option to sign it, I thought if you refused they would cut your payment. I didn’t even get a chance to read it before I signed.

Sorry is the contract the personal progression plan that you had to sign on you first meeting?

I have an email of it and just read through it it says I give consent for Turas Nua to contact my employer and get details and share these details with the Department of Social protection.

blowin3

Quadrivium wrote: »

No you do not, regardless of what they say there can be no compulsion in forming a contract. It must be entered into freely, you can refuse to sign any contact but you must turn up to their meetings as that is a separate issue and is classed as "engaging" if you turn up but refuse to sign the contract then the DSP can not stop our payment. Stick to your guns and remember these people in Seetec are just a private company who get paid for your signature, it's up to you if you want to sign up to their service for 52 weeks or not, but remember they won't let you access any other employment services such courses or the BTEA etc. if you sign with them.

The PPP document is that the contract? I am on a zero hour contract hence I am on dockets. The last time I never had to attend meetings as I was working but now things have changed a bit due to lack of hours at the moment. But that can change with a phone call from the agency I work for.

Nomis21

The bottom line on Jobpath is that many people will sign off the live register because either they are fed up with being hassled by these companies and find it easier to take any job rather than put up with them or they are doing nixers and Jobpath gets in the way of doing that work.

So as far as the government is concerned Jobpath is a success. I don't think it is a success considering what it costs the taxpayer and the way people are being treated, but many will think it was about time something was done about people who never worked in their whole lives out of choice. That choice is not such an easy one now but the cost can be high for people who are genuinely looking for work or further educaton.

Wanderer78

Nomis21 wrote: »

The bottom line on Jobpath is that many people will sign off the live register because either they are fed up with being hassled by these companies and find it easier to take any job rather than put up with them or they are doing nixers and Jobpath gets in the way of doing that work.

So as far as the government is concerned Jobpath is a success. I don't think it is a success considering what it costs the taxpayer and the way people are being treated, but many will think it was about time something was done about people who never worked in their whole lives out of choice. That choice is not such an easy one now but the cost can be high for people who are genuinely looking for work or further educaton.

this is how not to deal with unemployment issues, in particular, long term unemployment

Samsgirl

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What's the story with gdpr and turas Nua, can people ask for their stored data to be permanently destroyed?

Very interesting point!!
Might follow up on this with an email today.

jenny_wexford

Quadrivium wrote: »

No you do not, regardless of what they say there can be no compulsion in forming a contract. It must be entered into freely, you can refuse to sign any contact but you must turn up to their meetings as that is a separate issue and is classed as "engaging" if you turn up but refuse to sign the contract then the DSP can not stop our payment. Stick to your guns and remember these people in Seetec are just a private company who get paid for your signature, it's up to you if you want to sign up to their service for 52 weeks or not, but remember they won't let you access any other employment services such courses or the BTEA etc. if you sign with them.

I rang social welfare this morning to see if i could do i part time course from ecollege while looking for work. I was told that i was picked up by turas nua on sat. I only reactivated my claim wed after completing a course. Are you saying i dont have to sign anything but i do have to attend meetings. Who will not allow you to access employment services. Is this only if you sign.

jmcgill16

jenny_wexford wrote: »

I rang social welfare this morning to see if i could do i part time course from ecollege while looking for work. I was told that i was picked up by turas nua on sat. I only reactivated my claim wed after completing a course. Are you saying i dont have to sign anything but i do have to attend meetings. Who will not allow you to access employment services. Is this only if you sign.

You're under no obligation to sign the contract. In fact, you're much better off not to. I've made a few posts about this in another thread on the subject:

The current best advice is to simply refuse to sign their contract at the meetings.

I've heard multiple reports of people doing that and them just being dropped from Seetac/Turas Nua with no penalty. By attending any meetings, but just not signing over any rights to Seetac, its not refusing to engage so your JSA can't be penalized. But at the same time Seetac can't deal with you.

The department even circulated an internal memo (which has since leaked) advising its staff not to dock anyones payments who does the above, so its fairly legitimate.

jmcgill16 wrote: »

The image is a little small, but readable. The key section relates to someone attending all meetings, but refusing to sign the contract. They were initially sanctioned by DSP, but this was then subsequently overturned:

“Having reviewed our internal Penalty Rate (PR) Circular in light of the original
decision to apply same, it was noted that it did not provide for the application of a Penalty rate and subsequent nine-week disqualification period in a situation where someone refused to sign the Personal Progression Plan (PPP) but indicated that they would still engage with a prescribed programme.”"

Since this happened I've personally known three people who've done exactly the same, and have had no sanctions applied to them. But they've been dropped by Turas Nua/Seetac.

jmcgill16 wrote: »

This was actually confirmed by the Minister for Social Protection herself a few weeks ago in the Dail too:

https://beta.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-02-20/64/

She says: "my Department does not currently record failure to agree a PPP solely and separately as a reason for non-engagement."

Clearly the policy has changed within the department in light of recent events.

Cactusmania

jmcgill16 wrote: »

You're under no obligation to sign the contract. In fact, you're much better off not to. I've made a few posts about this in another thread on the subject:

Yes, jmcgill16 is correct. I refused to sign the PPP at the 1st meeting, and at the second meeting, I was told I no longer have to attend meetings.
Between the two meetings, I got called to social welare to explain myself. I told them why, and they were unable to sanction me.
The case officer said they are always geting new informaton on the matter, and may contact me in a number of weeks, but it won't matter
because Turas Nua won't take me back without a fully signed PPP (it's split into 3 parts, read it carefully!)

pirlo80

Cactusmania wrote: »

Yes, jmcgill16 is correct. I refused to sign the PPP at the 1st meeting, and at the second meeting, I was told I no longer have to attend meetings.
Between the two meetings, I got called to social welare to explain myself. I told them why, and they were unable to sanction me.
The case officer said they are always geting new informaton on the matter, and may contact me in a number of weeks, but it won't matter
because Turas Nua won't take me back without a fully signed PPP (it's split into 3 parts, read it carefully!)

Hi cactus out of interest, what reason did you give for not signing the contract ?

volono

I originally refused to sign and they contacted social welfare and told them i didn't engage even though i went through the meeting and answered all their questions but just refused to sign. I was then docked 44 euro per week for nine weeks and then cut off completely, I went down to social welfare and they said we're arranging a meeting with the manager and you can voice your concerns to them regarding the contract. At the meeting i was effectively told if you don't sign i have to tell social welfare , which in effect would have left me with no payment -- gun to the head basically so i had to sign

jenny_wexford

Cactusmania wrote: »

Yes, jmcgill16 is correct. I refused to sign the PPP at the 1st meeting, and at the second meeting, I was told I no longer have to attend meetings.
Between the two meetings, I got called to social welare to explain myself. I told them why, and they were unable to sanction me.
The case officer said they are always geting new informaton on the matter, and may contact me in a number of weeks, but it won't matter
because Turas Nua won't take me back without a fully signed PPP (it's split into 3 parts, read it carefully!)

Thanks for this can i ask that you said to social. I'm waiting for a letter to arrive to say i have to go down to turas nua. They pick me up on sat??

Wanderer78

volono wrote:

I originally refused to sign and they contacted social welfare and told them i didn't engage even though i went through the meeting and answered all their questions but just refused to sign. I was then docked 44 euro per week for nine weeks and then cut off completely, I went down to social welfare and they said we're arranging a meeting with the manager and you can voice your concerns to them regarding the contract. At the meeting i was effectively told if you don't sign i have to tell social welfare , which in effect would have left me with no payment -- gun to the head basically so i had to sign

Thank you for your post, it's actually extremely critical, we now must ask ourselves some serious questions as a society, is this the way we want to be treated?

jmcgill16

volono wrote: »

I originally refused to sign and they contacted social welfare and told them i didn't engage even though i went through the meeting and answered all their questions but just refused to sign. I was then docked 44 euro per week for nine weeks and then cut off completely, I went down to social welfare and they said we're arranging a meeting with the manager and you can voice your concerns to them regarding the contract. At the meeting i was effectively told if you don't sign i have to tell social welfare , which in effect would have left me with no payment -- gun to the head basically so i had to sign

Thats sad to hear. How long ago was this though? The DSP should have stopped doing this as of this calendar year (2018) - the Minster herself has said as much in the Dail. Cactusmania's experience seems to be the norm now.

volono

7/8 months ago my biggest problem is that in effect you are giving them permission to act as an agent on your behalf, sorry no not interested, well even though you are fit able and seeking work etc. which you sign every week getting your payment you now have to sign a contract with a wholly owned private company and if not you'll receive no payment - totally wrong imo.
As for their services - complete box ticking exercise - around 6 or so months in now and they've done nothing and i mean literally nothing . Thankfully i only see them every 3 weeks or so. When i do gain employment the sim card is going in the bin and the gmail ignored

volono

Cactusmania - at least your affirming what i originally thought last year re the contract etc they want you to sign unfortunately it was a bit late for me , hope alot more people see this thread and realise who and what these companies are

Wanderer78

volono wrote:

7/8 months ago my biggest problem is that in effect you are giving them permission to act as an agent on your behalf, sorry no not interested, well even though you are fit able and seeking work etc. which you sign every week getting your payment you now have to sign a contract with a wholly owned private company and if not you'll receive no payment - totally wrong imo. As for their services - complete box ticking exercise - around 6 or so months in now and they've done nothing and i mean literally nothing . Thankfully i only see them every 3 weeks or so. When i do gain employment the sim card is going in the bin and the gmail ignored

Either delete the email address, or setup a rule within the address, to automatically delete email from them, all after the fact of course.

Cactusmania

pirlo80 wrote: »

Hi cactus out of interest, what reason did you give for not signing the contract ?

Hi pirlo80. Check out this post here:

https://bit.ly/2HELqN6

Interestingly, the case officer I spoke to said you absolutely do not have to sign this section.

Milkman..

What's the difference between turas nua and seetac/jobpath?

I was made unemployed recently and have an appointment with jobpath