My unemployed story

Naos · 02-03-2018 08:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

True. But they weren’t doing a great job. 18% is a decent start.

18% means that 82% did not get a job through them.

If you were in a room with 10 people, only one other would have a similar story to you. Eight of the other people would feel let down and that the system did not work for them and they would be right.

NinetyTwoTeam · 02-03-2018 08:29PM

Malia Cold Matte wrote: »

Ajsoprano wrote: »

That’s exactly why it’s important to get rid of these schemes and this government for that matter. It’s a recovery in name alone.

I don't know how many recessions and recoveries you have seen but it is certainly a recovery in real terms. And achieved much quicker than had been anticipated.

The schemes obviously weren't for you and didn't work for you (as you state ad infinitum) but they worked for many others.

No they didn't. Jobbridge was scrapped because it did more harm than good - cost the state an extra 50 per week to replace vacant positions with internships and most people who got work after doing the scheme did NOT get it with the company they interned with. The government included those outside companies to make it look like the scheme was working - even if someone on an internship just took a cashier or bar job to get off the dole.

And only 18% have got work out of Jobpath. Look it up.

I've been on it 9 months and they haven't referred me to a single employer, because employers aren't using them - they consider Jobpath clients to be scraping the bottom of the barrel and they don't need to do that unless it's for a horrible job, and they don't want to deal with the ridiculous ideas Jobpath have about 'supporting the client for a year', which amounts to ringing your employer to see how you're getting on (ie: annoying him/her) and they only do that because they need you to stay a year in the job to get their commission.

it's totally unfit for purpose. it's geared towards those who can't do the basics like make up a CV or talk about their experience in an interview - and those people aren't going to get jobs anyway considering it's still an employers market. if you have a degree, experience and are actually employable they can't help you. in fact they can't help anyone if you live in Donegal bc as my advisor said last time 'I've never seen it so quiet.'

Instead of paying this useless company to tick a few boxes next to my name every fortnight the government would be far better served to just make that money available to relocate me to somewhere that has actually experienced this miraculous recovery I keep hearing about. Over half of our government leaders are landlords so the money would have a good chance of going right back to them anyway, which they can put towards their phone or their car (oh wait, they get that for free) or maybe spend it in the Dail bar (oh wait, they don't have to pay their tab in there either). I know - they can give it to their parents to pay them back for the house deposit loans they got.

Avatar MIA · 02-03-2018 08:32PM

Naos wrote: »

18% means that 82% did not get a job through them.

If you were in a room with 10 people, only other other would have a similar story to you. Eight of the other people would feel let down and that the system did not work for them and they would be right.

Sorry, you want everyone to be guaranteed jobs? Russia had people manning lifts in housing blocks so everyone had a job. Is that what you had in mind?

You're looking at it all wrong. You see the 82% unemployed that failed to get a job out of it (and assigning blame to the agency, right?), and not the 18% formerly unemployed that did.

splinter65 · 02-03-2018 08:33PM

Ajsoprano wrote: »

I do ok. My house is paid for. I’m on a decent wage. I can afford a couple of holidays a year. I’m not some student languishing in a hovel reading Karl Marx and complaining about Donald trump.

The only way socialism could work is if it was honest and if the whole world was one country.

We could have a compromise where the sick and needy were helped rather than kicked though.

I’d like good training courses for the unemployed in jobs where we have shortages of skills.

What I don’t like is a private company getting paid a fortune from the state for offering nothing but box ticking and course refusal meetings.

Where do you see the “sick and needy” being “kicked” in Ireland ? In what sense are they”kicked” here?
Socialism doesn’t work . It’s evil. It’s never worked anywhere and it never will. We need business builders to build businesses and employ people and meet the demand for goods and services.
That’s the only thing that works.
Your giving the impression that long term unemployed people are being made to break rocks in the hot afternoon sun by a cruel gang master because they couldn’t find a job.
That’s not what’s happening and you know that perfectly well.
Young able bodied people were presenting themselves as unable to find work when my husbands employer is advertising for general operatives in the Czech Republic.
Something wrong there, don’t you think?
So these companies have been brought in to sort it out.
Your sense of outrage at this is puzzling.
Years of pussyfooting around people who clearly have a different idea of what “job hunting” means hasn’t worked so a different approach is needed.
At the end of the day it must be working because unemployment is at its lowest since 10 years, and you can’t argue with that.

Ajsoprano · 02-03-2018 08:37PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Sorry, you want everyone to be guaranteed jobs? Russia had people manning lifts in housing blocks so everyone had a job. Is that what you had in mind?

You're looking at it all wrong. You see the 82% unemployed that failed to get a job out of it (and assigning blame to the agency, right?), and not the 18% formerly unemployed that did.

Really you in particular are funny. You think Russia having people manning lifts is terrible but me manning an empty car park is fine. Great even.

Avatar MIA · 02-03-2018 08:37PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Where do you see the “sick and needy” being “kicked” ? In what sense are they”kicked”?

The OP has moved on to starting a fascinating thread about why people are shovelling snow from their driveway, so it may be some time before he gets back to you.

Ajsoprano · 02-03-2018 08:38PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Where do you see the “sick and needy” being “kicked” ? In what sense are they”kicked”?

Hotels have a record occupancy rate.

Avatar MIA · 02-03-2018 08:38PM

Ajsoprano wrote: »

Really you in particular are funny. You think Russia having people manning lifts is terrible but me manning an empty car park is fine. Great even.

All you needed to do was paint a few lines on the ground and your job would have been sorted. So, manning a lift would probably be a reach... all them buttons could get confusing :P

NinetyTwoTeam · 02-03-2018 08:43PM

Do you lot honestly think that 18% would only have got work because of the wonders of Jobpath?

If they're numbers are so good, why are their so many complaints about people who got jobs on their own back being harassed by their advisor to find out where they got the job asking for the employers details to try and claim credit and get payment for it.

If you haven't been on the scheme and seen firsthand how unbelievably mickey mouse it is, you really have no idea what you're talking about and should probably keep your trap shut about it because you sound ridiculous. 18% is abysmal and is not just a reflection of the scheme but of how badly the government are exaggerating the recovery.

but I'm guessing you lot probably think 82% of the people on the scheme just don't want to work anyway, don't you? yeah, that's what i figured.

Ajsoprano · 02-03-2018 08:45PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

All you needed to do was paint a few lines on the ground and your job would have been sorted. So, manning a lift would probably be a reach... all them buttons could get confusing :P

I wasn’t allowed paint the lines. It wasn’t a job some go getter could come in and get promoted to boss if he kept his nose clean because nobody else ever thought of painting lines.

If they had lines they’d have nothing for the unemployed to do or for the employed people to laugh at.

splinter65 · 02-03-2018 08:45PM

Ajsoprano wrote: »

Hotels have a record occupancy rate.

What has this got to do with kicking the “sick and needy”? You’re gonna have to spell it out.

Ajsoprano · 02-03-2018 08:47PM

splinter65 wrote: »

What has this got to do with kicking the “sick and needy”? You’re gonna have to spell it out.

A lot of the sick and needy are being housed in them.

Avatar MIA · 02-03-2018 08:48PM

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

Do you lot honestly think that 18% would only have got work because of the wonders of Jobpath?

If they're numbers are so good, why are their so many complaints about people who got jobs on their own back being harassed by their advisor to find out where they got the job asking for the employers details to try and claim credit and get payment for it.

If you haven't been on the scheme and seen firsthand how unbelievably mickey mouse it is, you really have no idea what you're talking about and should probably keep your trap shut about it because you sound ridiculous. 18% is abysmal and is not just a reflection of the scheme but of how badly the government are exaggerating the recovery.

but I'm guessing you lot probably think 82% of the people on the scheme just don't want to work anyway, don't you? yeah, that's what i figured.

You don't need your mouth open to type on boards.ie... Unless, you're a mouth breather. Are you a mouth breather? figures.

You're right, I've never stepped foot in a dole office in my life. I do however see how hard it is to employ the right staff, and see how many jobs are going unfilled at the moment in all manner of industries. Are some of these "careers" you'd go to college to achieve... no.

And we're now down to 6% unemployed, so while I do think 82% is high, 18% of people mainly unemployed for 12 months is good going. And I certainly wouldn't blame the agency for the 82%.

splinter65 · 02-03-2018 08:51PM

Ajsoprano wrote: »

I wasn’t allowed paint the lines. It wasn’t a job some go getter could come in and get promoted to boss if he kept his nose clean because nobody else ever thought of painting lines.

If they had lines they’d have nothing for the unemployed to do or for the employed people to laugh at.

There you go again. Somehow the employed people are also partially to blame for the unemployed philosopher being forced to fulfill the DSP requirement of being available for any type of work.
The main thing is that as a result of your experience with TN/Seetec you are yet another one of the many who miraculously and coincidentally found a job themselves when it became apparent that the train had pulled into the station.
That’s the main thing. It’s all good.

Avatar MIA · 02-03-2018 08:53PM

Ajsoprano wrote: »

I wasn’t allowed paint the lines. It wasn’t a job some go getter could come in and get promoted to boss if he kept his nose clean because nobody else ever thought of painting lines.

If they had lines they’d have nothing for the unemployed to do or for the employed people to laugh at.

You were there, what, approx. 260 days? I can guarantee you after day one I'd have bought chalk and either bought or borrowed a tape measure and evenly spaced lines would have appeared overnight in a great mystery to rival crop circles.

And who the Fcuk was laughing at you? You do realise that was all in your own mind? Now, you were most likely "invisible" to people, but that goes for a lot of roles.

Ferris_Bueller · 02-03-2018 08:55PM

Question for the OP, was this car park job you had a CE or a TUS scheme? Or was it a paid position that was just offering low wages?

Naos · 02-03-2018 08:56PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Sorry, you want everyone to be guaranteed jobs? Russia had people manning lifts in housing blocks so everyone had a job. Is that what you had in mind?

You're looking at it all wrong. You see the 82% unemployed that failed to get a job out of it (and assigning blame to the agency, right?), and not the 18% formerly unemployed that did.

I never said I wanted everyone to be guaranteed jobs.

My point was that only 18% got jobs as a result of it, that is a very poor return.

Here's a question: Of the 18% that got jobs, do you think those eventual full time jobs were created as a result of Jobbridge or were they jobs that were going to be created anyway?

Avatar MIA · 02-03-2018 09:00PM

Naos wrote: »

I never said I wanted everyone to be guaranteed jobs.

My point was that only 18% got jobs as a result of it, that is a very poor return.

Here's a question: Of the 18% that got jobs, do you think those eventual full time jobs were created as a result of Jobbridge or were they jobs that were going to be created anyway?

I don't know. What I do know is that they were filled by those that were mainly unemployed for 12 months previously.

It's going to be incredibly hard to get a job after being unemployed for 12 months - for all manner of reasons. Fair play to them - were they helped by the experience they earned or motivated to get away from the agencies. I think it likely. Or more to the point, are there at least some that got jobs BECAUSE of the agency, then the answer is almost certainly yes.

Ajsoprano · 02-03-2018 09:01PM

splinter65 wrote: »

There you go again. Somehow the employed people are also partially to blame for the unemployed philosopher being forced to fulfill the DSP requirement of being available for any type of work.
The main thing is that as a result of your experience with TN/Seetec you are yet another one of the many who miraculously and coincidentally found a job themselves when it became apparent that the train had pulled into the station.
That’s the main thing. It’s all good.

I was there for a year and finished it. You seem to be making your own narrative. Your chalk wouldn’t have been visible. Take a deep breathe and decide if you are just saying random stuff to be mean. The line changed on a day by day basis for no other reason than the fella decided that’s where it was.

People were laughing at me. One evening a car pulled up and the back window came down and two twelve year olds were laughing one asked me how much I got paid then their dad or football manager started laughing.

I got shouted at regularly. One fella let his dog out of the car and tried to get him to attack me.

TheAnalyst_ · 02-03-2018 09:02PM

TBH it does sound fairly ****e. Did you have any choice to work there?

Avatar MIA · 02-03-2018 09:04PM

Ajsoprano wrote: »

People were laughing at me. One evening a car pulled up and the back window came down and two twelve year olds were laughing one asked me how much I got paid then their dad or football manager started laughing.

Some people are arséholes. You're going to meet those in all walks of life. Do you think people working in offices or working on the road with the council live in an arséhole free environment. They don't.

BTW, think you got the wrong person above.

Ajsoprano · 02-03-2018 09:08PM

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

TBH it does sound fairly ****e. Did you have any choice to work there?

Nope I had to lie in my job interview for the job I have now saying I was there doing plumbing maintenance.
I didn’t give them as a reference. They probably would have thought it funny to give me a bad one.
When my year was up a little junkie looking fella replaced me and I could see he was a nervous wreck after a week where I showed him how to replace me.
He genuinely wanted to work but he weighed about two stone and I doubt anyone would give him a job on the look of him. He wanted to be a car washer.

Ajsoprano · 02-03-2018 09:11PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Some people are arséholes. You're going to meet those in all walks of life. Do you think people working in offices or working on the road with the council live in an arséhole free environment. They don't.

BTW, think you got the wrong person above.

You are starting to sound like a daytime talk show host. Some people were arsehole but I wasn’t trained to deal with them never mind antagonize them.

Avatar MIA · 02-03-2018 09:18PM

Ajsoprano wrote: »

You are starting to sound like a daytime talk show host.

I have heard of such folk, know them well do you?

Naos · 02-03-2018 09:41PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I don't know. What I do know is that they were filled by those that were mainly unemployed for 12 months previously.

It's going to be incredibly hard to get a job after being unemployed for 12 months - for all manner of reasons. Fair play to them - were they helped by the experience they earned or motivated to get away from the agencies. I think it likely. Or more to the point, are there at least some that got jobs BECAUSE of the agency, then the answer is almost certainly yes.

Right but you realise that the majority of the Jobridge scheme was made up of real jobs that would have been filled anyway by people looking for work?

Example - Tesco and the likes who had Jobbridge roles stacking shelves.

Avatar MIA · 02-03-2018 09:47PM

Naos wrote: »

Right but you realise that the majority of the Jobridge scheme was made up of real jobs that would have been filled anyway by people looking for work?

Example - Tesco and the likes who had Jobbridge roles stacking shelves.

Jobsbridge =/= jobpath

Although, I'd great time for Jobsbridge. A company where I worked took on someone pretty much as a trial because of jobsbridge and kept them on because they worked out so well. And, I've heard of good things from others.

Was Jobsbridge abused at times, yes it was, but that does not take away from the good it did.

Naos · 02-03-2018 09:52PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Jobsbridge =/= jobpath

Although, I'd great time for Jobsbridge. A company where I worked took on someone pretty much as a trial because of jobsbridge and kept them on because they worked out so well. And, I've heard of good things from others.

Was Jobsbridge abused at times, yes it was, but that does not take away from the good it did.

I am not denying that for some it worked out very well. However, we need to look at the bigger picture, for the many it was not a success.

Avatar MIA · 02-03-2018 09:55PM

Naos wrote: »

I am not denying that for some it worked out very well. However, we need to look at the bigger picture, for the many it was not a success.

Define success though. Not matter what the incentive, scheme or initiative it will not suit all.

What suggestions re improvements do you have?

Ajsoprano · 02-03-2018 10:08PM

Lads I’m going to bow out of this thread. It seems I’m abit insensitive in my reply’s and am offending somebody so much that they are left with no option to report my posts.
I didn’t realise I was being so aggressive and feel terrible if I made them feel anyway uncomfortable.
I’d say another day posting here and they’d have to close my account on me with all the trouble I’m causing. If the moderators could just close the thread that’d be great.
Again I apologize if I upset anyone.

Naos · 02-03-2018 10:08PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Define success though. Not matter what the incentive, scheme or initiative it will not suit all.

What suggestions re improvements do you have?

Agreed - I would define a success as one which worked for the majority as oppossed to the minority.

Do you think it was a success?

...the net benefit to unemployed youth partaking in the scheme as opposed to staying on the live register is much smaller than advertised (possibly nil), and is potentially outweighed by the negative aspects; such as loss of revenue to the state (from foregone tax and PRSI) and distortions to the entry level labour market.

- Source

My unemployed story

Comments