The problem with the country ? (Mods delete if not allowed)

LirW wrote: »

If you, as someone who worked has to go on Jobseekers, they'll hound you, put you on nonsense courses or schemes and while this is all pretty depressing, it's for a very good reason.

But if someone comes from a long line of workshy families, how exactly would they ever find employment locally? Everyone local knows about the bad reputation and won't hire them, rightly so. As a business owner I wouldn't be interested either, it would be a liability and chances are there will be other applicants suited a lot better anyway.
The way I see it is that at the end it's a ransom you pay in order to keep them entertained, fed and warm. I totally disagree with the housing policy where a tenancy is indefinite and even if you turn it all around you get to stay for a marginal rate. But re-integrating chronic unemployed is a mammoth task even if they're engaging. It's a really difficult cycle to break out of.

If you'd cut all benefits overnight this would end badly, they're not going to type up their CVs overnight, probably a good number of them are barely literate.
It sucks, it sucks for everyone with a long commute, who scrapes by, who works long hours to afford a modest home.
I really don't agree with a lot of policies around housing people on long-term benefits but generally I think it's a better thing to pay and put up with it than cutting them off and let it all end in a disaster.

Well I work with lads from Eastern Europe and they tell me in their countries if someone doesn't make any effort to find work the benefits are stopped, seems fair to me.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well I work with lads from Eastern Europe and they tell me in their countries if someone doesn't make any effort to find work the benefits are stopped, seems fair to me.

Did they also mention the crippling poverty that you can see in huge parts of Eastern Europe? Or how many families are torn apart because one or both of the parents have to go work into western countries and leave their children behind in order to provide for them at home? Or that young women without perspectives are an easy target for human trafficking as are poor children? Or whole areas with low employment being run by an organised crime because they know people can't find anything and are pretty darn desperate.

I come from a country myself where you get nothing but the bare essentials to survive if you're not engaging. And I grew up in some miserable areas with lots of long-term unemployed. It's a lot more complex than just cutting them off, many really don't know how to help themselves.

Now how high is the rate of long-term unemployed with a family history in relation to working people/short term unemployed?

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Children's allowance is paid to working parents too so it's pointless listing it.

How much will a woman ( unmarried but cohabiting) get each month if they are unemployed ( but partner has a job)?

Jobseekers treat you like a married couple even if you're co-habitating unless you can prove you're living in a share situation or there aren't children involved. Then you're means tested where your partner's income and social welfare payments are taken into account. Can be anywhere from full rate to nil, entirely depends on the individual situation.

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

It happens here too. I signed on the dole last year and was put straight onto the 'Jobpath' scam scheme. I missed one of my pointless box-ticking meetings with them because it clashed with a written assessment for a job that I had applied for. I had to cancel another because it clashed with an interview. The result of this was that my benefits were stopped.

But the difference is you want to find a job, those that never want to work are the people I'm getting at.

Nobody has a prroblem with people getting help while they look for work, that was the reason the system was set up in the first place.

LirW wrote: »

Did they also mention the crippling poverty that you can see in huge parts of Eastern Europe? Or how many families are torn apart because one or both of the parents have to go work into western countries and leave their children behind in order to provide for them at home? Or that young women without perspectives are an easy target for human trafficking as are poor children? Or whole areas with low employment being run by an organised crime because they know people can't find anything and are pretty darn desperate.

I come from a country myself where you get nothing but the bare essentials to survive if you're not engaging. And I grew up in some miserable areas with lots of long-term unemployed. It's a lot more complex than just cutting them off, many really don't know how to help themselves.

Now how high is the rate of long-term unemployed with a family history in relation to working people/short term unemployed?

So what's your solution then, we just say nothing and let them lie in the scratcher all week waiting for dole day?

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So what's your solution then, we just say nothing and let them lie in the scratcher all week waiting for dole day?

I good way to go would be to clear up the myriad of benefits that are accessible under certain circumstances and make it easier to access them. Keep the means test up and re-assess regularly. Change the social housing system to a lease base, don't sell stock off, bring in regular assessments and once you have the means to support yourself your lease won't be extended, if you still qualify your rate will be assessed and you keep paying that until the next assessment (like an annual assessment and lease lasts 3 years). Stricter enforcement if anti-social behaviour policy.
Also you have a pick of two or three suitable properties and if you don't like them sort yourself out (as in adequate number of rooms and taking disabilities into account, offering a wheelchair user a 2 up 2 down is not on).
I don't think it is a good idea to completely cut people off benefit but lower the benefit to a minimum if they do not engage with services.

Let's be honest, long-term unemployed are a big deal because of housing - some get housed in expensive prime Housing estates and they have no consequences to fear if they act the maggot. It wouldn't be half as bad if people could get kicked out and neighbours don't live with the constant fear of their life being made hell if the wrong family gets moved in next door.
I totally get that. The uproar would be a lot less if there would be a a family in backarseroscommon that gets housed in a small town.
But part of this mess is this incredible inflexibility with councils micromanaging everything. Dublin alone as 4 councils and you can't move from one to another on the list. If you decide you want to go on the list in Mayo because Dublin probably won't house you and you can't work, Mayo tells you to go back to Dublin because you have no housing need there.
It would make sense for social housing purposes to create a greater Dublin area including everything in a radius of X. Same with Cork and Galway.

Also getting rid of this "can't uproot the children" nonsense. Fair enough if you need a support network for special needs children or on health grounds but you go on a separate list for that anyway. But children are well able to move school or area. People who house themselves privately have no other choice but to move where they can afford.
The council should house people without taking feelings into account. You either need a house or you don't, for many able-bodied picking and choosing isn't on.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This is nuts.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that that rule existed in the 1980s, I had to google it to be convinced it still applies.

For tax purposes, you will never be treated as married by Revenue, even if you've lived together your whole lives, unless you enter into a marriage. But when it comes to giving people a basic subsistence, they invert the rule and tell you that you're sufficiently taken care of?

My now-husband had to sign on for a few weeks a few years back and we were living with his parents. The hoops he had to jump through were unreal so his parents retirement wasn't taken into account and my means were assessed too plus I had to fill out the Habitual Residence condition form for myself just for his claim.
It is insane that for welfare purposes you're assessed like a married couple.
Same as now, he's working, I'm on Jobseekers and the cut off point isn't that high for getting a heavily reduced Jobseekers or nothing at all. Sometimes the claim also shifts, like one partner is out of work and you suddenly qualify for a certain payment at the working partner and if you claim your partner's dole claim is automatically cut in half before your needs are assessed.
Honestly it's quite confusing.

Never wrestle with pigs wrote: »

Not trying to be. I'm very serious. We were looking for workers lately and can't get any as to many people are getting it far to easy doll bludging. Of course they are laughing.

OK I'd be interested but I don't have the 3 - 5 years work experience and I don't drive so don't have a driving licence, are you willing to train people at entry level who have no experience.

Bigmac1euro wrote: »

It isn’t funny, it’s a disgrace. And the group in question has 55k members. Most agreeing with the new York, holiday woman.

What's the name of this group, is it for people who think the dole is the ****z or something?