Dole holidays curtailed

Sara Yellow Ballpoint wrote: »

Source for this? Highly doubtful under GDPR

https://www.irishimmigration.ie/irish-passenger-information-unit/

Gdpr isn't an all encompassing system. There's allowances for state agencies

Mortelaro wrote: »

Gardai, revenue and the department of social welfare have access to all your state data and are allowed use it
They must inform you of this but you cannot prevent it

Incorrect. Warrants are needed in some cases. No state agency has direct access to other agencies data but they're are agreements in place. Prtb and revenue for example. Or the courts, prisons and Gardai. The piu can provide info to revenue as well.

And they certainly won't tell you.

Dempo1 wrote: »

Your some tulip, I'm hoping your not lumping PUP recipient's into your narrow minded assertions.

A. They're not looking for a job as they have one, it's LOCKDOWN, or under severe pressure not of their doing.

B. It's likely the holiday was paid for long before this debacle

C. Very liitle can be said re your assertion on getting up at, but I suspect countless pup receipients have lives to lead, perhaps kids to care for etc, you know the type, "ordinary decent people in a situation they've no control over"

I'm not lumping in covid19 payments with job seekers. Your confusing the two here.

Mortelaro

Sara Yellow Ballpoint wrote: »

Source for this? Highly doubtful under GDPR

Gardai, revenue and the department of social welfare have access to all your state data and are allowed use it
They must inform you of this but you cannot prevent it

pablo128 wrote: »

You need to take personal responsibility. This thing is highly contagious, and it hasn't gone away.

I'm fully aware of that fact.
I'm sure Ryanair are fully aware of that fact too,the same as the pubs/restaurants which have recently opened back up here and in Spain for example.
So if joe blogs has a trip too the costa Del sol booked since last year,well joe blogs is fully entitled too go on
His holiday if he likes.being on the dole or pup payment doesn't change the fact.
Joe could be sitting by the pool with his San Miguel beer in his hand enjoying the sun rather than sitting in pissing rain here in Ireland while getting his dole/pup lodged into his account so he can buy more sangria for mrs blogs

pablo128

Pinoy adventure wrote: »

Advising is the key word here.
They cannot stop you if you want too go,on the dole or not

You need to take personal responsibility. This thing is highly contagious, and it hasn't gone away.

pablo128 wrote: »

The government is advising people not to holiday abroad at the moment though. To prevent the spread of covid from worse affected countries.

Advising is the key word here.
They cannot stop you if you want too go,on the dole or not

pablo128

Pinoy adventure wrote: »

It is there few bob since they have paid taxes in the jobs they held.

A.they don't need too look for a job -the get hundreds of euro a week.

B.im guessing they would of booked there tickets either by credit or debit card so yes it would be staying in the economy & keeping people in jobs too.

C.everybody needs/deserves a holiday now and again.even those who can't afford them.

The government is advising people not to holiday abroad at the moment though. To prevent the spread of covid from worse affected countries.

polesheep

Dempo1 wrote: »

agreed but we are actually NOT paying tax at the moment, that little surprise comes at the end of year when revenue will be contacting everyone that was on either PUP or TWSS

Self employed people don't pay their tax until the end of the year, but that doesn't mean that they aren't tax payers. Taxes will be collected. People on PUP cannot be compared to people on the dole, not that there is any issue with being on the dole.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Revenue and social have legal access to travel information across the entire eu. Naturally it requires then bring suspicious and looking though

Source for this? Highly doubtful under GDPR

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, it's not their few Bob to spend how they see fit. Is to ensure they can live while looking for a job.

A, they aren't looking for a job

B, the money isn't even staying in the economy.

C, they don't need a holiday from getting up at 1pm

It is there few bob since they have paid taxes in the jobs they held.

A.they don't need too look for a job -the get hundreds of euro a week.

B.im guessing they would of booked there tickets either by credit or debit card so yes it would be staying in the economy & keeping people in jobs too.

C.everybody needs/deserves a holiday now and again.even those who can't afford them.

BENDYBINN

Pinoy adventure wrote: »

Jayus let them enjoy a bit of a holiday.
So what if they receive state help.its there few bob and they can spend it how and where they want.
Them f%#kers in the airport,sometimes stand beside the lads scanning the boarding passes and have/can ask have you notified the departmant befour you leave in holidays.well you are supposed too tell them befour hand.
The scanning of the boarding pass goes true the SW inspectors system and once your name pops up they know if you have told them.

Comedy gold........

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, it's not their few Bob to spend how they see fit. Is to ensure they can live while looking for a job.

A, they aren't looking for a job

B, the money isn't even staying in the economy.

C, they don't need a holiday from getting up at 1pm

Your some tulip, I'm hoping your not lumping PUP recipient's into your narrow minded assertions.

A. They're not looking for a job as they have one, it's LOCKDOWN, or under severe pressure not of their doing.

B. It's likely the holiday was paid for long before this debacle

C. Very liitle can be said re your assertion on getting up at, but I suspect countless pup receipients have lives to lead, perhaps kids to care for etc, you know the type, "ordinary decent people in a situation they've no control over"

Connacht15 wrote: »

BTW The lads who work in pairs as dole inspectors in The Airport are obvious from a mile off they wear black suit jackets and I have seen them stop folk!

The reason why I'm pointing this out is that Im a civil libertarian and I believe it's none of the states business where I go, especially if Its to the CTA or The EFTA areas!

They aren't social welfare inspectors so you are talking absolute ****e. They are employed by the daa direct

So not only are you lying about that but also your career.

Pinoy adventure wrote: »

Jayus let them enjoy a bit of a holiday.
So what if they receive state help.its there few bob and they can spend it how and where they want.
Them f%#kers in the airport,sometimes stand beside the lads scanning the boarding passes and have/can ask have you notified the departmant befour you leave in holidays.well you are supposed too tell them befour hand.
The scanning of the boarding pass goes true the SW inspectors system and once your name pops up they know if you have told them.

No, it's not their few Bob to spend how they see fit. Is to ensure they can live while looking for a job.

A, they aren't looking for a job

B, the money isn't even staying in the economy.

C, they don't need a holiday from getting up at 1pm

Queasy Tadpole wrote: »

Go on holidays, don't inform the department - keep your dole.

Zero ways to police this.

Revenue and social have legal access to travel information across the entire eu. Naturally it requires then bring suspicious and looking though

liosnagceann75 wrote: »

Just came across this thread. I know someone who has moved to London after he began receiving the payment and is drawing it since. How could this be allowed happen?

Because the department is only verifying eligibility via the mygovid portal, basically electronically via email etc, with SW office opening hours minimised and social distancing in place they can't get people to sign as such for payments, also unless requested, payment is also transferred electronically. As disgraceful as it is, you could continue to draw payment from timbuk Q. This said, I do hope this persons travel arrangements will be reviewed in time.

liosnagceann75

Just came across this thread. I know someone who has moved to London after he began receiving the payment and is drawing it since. How could this be allowed happen?

agreed but we are actually NOT paying tax at the moment, that little surprise comes at the end of year when revenue will be contacting everyone that was on either PUP or TWSS

stevek93

What holiday are they getting? Holiday from what?

polesheep

Mortelaro wrote: »

What you are describing there is fraud
Those on the wage subsidy scheme, must be employed and paid that wage

The PUP is also a special subsidy for employees affected by temporary business closures
Its not meant to be for permanent job losses
We already have the highest if not the highest dole in the world without this sense of entitlement that it should be over 300 quid a week to multiple householders, why would anyone work?

I do agree that people should not be going on foreign holidays when on the pup, even if they saved for it
Their circumstances have changed, they can't afford it now and it's not the states business or the taxes of those employed to be effectively paying for it The proper thing to do with companies that lay off people who were on wage subsidy would be to claw it back
Won't happen though for fear of jeopardising remaining jobs
That's understandable, if somewhat sub optimal

People on PUP are effectively still employed and are still paying taxes.

"We're all in this together" :rolleyes:

Jayus let them enjoy a bit of a holiday.
So what if they receive state help.its there few bob and they can spend it how and where they want.
Them f%#kers in the airport,sometimes stand beside the lads scanning the boarding passes and have/can ask have you notified the departmant befour you leave in holidays.well you are supposed too tell them befour hand.
The scanning of the boarding pass goes true the SW inspectors system and once your name pops up they know if you have told them.

Mortelaro wrote: »

What you are describing there is fraud
Those on the wage subsidy scheme, must be employed and paid that wage

The PUP is also a special subsidy for employees affected by temporary business closures
Its not meant to be for permanent job losses
We already have the highest if not the highest dole in the world without this sense of entitlement that it should be over 300 quid a week to multiple householders, why would anyone work?

I do agree that people should not be going on foreign holidays when on the pup, even if they saved for it
Their circumstances have changed, they can't afford it now and it's not the states business or the taxes of those employed to be effectively paying for it The proper thing to do with companies that lay off people who were on wage subsidy would be to claw it back
Won't happen though for fear of jeopardising remaining jobs
That's understandable, if somewhat sub optimal

I am describing facts I'm afraid, as explained I know at least 3 people personally, 2 have even be told they'll likely be redundant when it ends, 2 in the travel industry, 1 in the hotel business. My concern is that the scheme seems to permit or encourage this. There are thousands in industries still closed, still on this scheme. I do not begrudge anyone a payment for a situation not of their doing but if we are to believe the statistics something is seriously a miss here

Mortelaro

Dempo1 wrote: »

The wage subsidy scheme TWSS, is the preferred choice of the government, far more palatable from a statistical point of view. On the surface, sounds great but I was shocked to learn that companies availing of this scheme that have furloughed their staff are able, encouraged to retain those staff and claim upto €2800 pm. So whilst there is a large portion of businesses actually trading with staff working and wages being subsidised, its clear there are possibly 100's if not thousands of business's fully closed and yet claiming vasts sums of money to pay laid off staff. I do not begrudge the staff affected but there seems to be a lot of PUP recipient's bashing going on.

What you are describing there is fraud
Those on the wage subsidy scheme, must be employed and paid that wage

It seems extraordinary to me that PUP recipients are likely to be left high and dry soon whilst the government seems quite happy to subsidise an increasing amount of furloughed staff to the tune of thousands per month. I know 3 people personally who know they'll never be re hired, even been advised when TWSS ends, redundancies will be offered.

Those on pup had little options when their employers closed business's temporarily or for foreseeable future and its looking increasingly likely they will be thrown to the wolves soon whilst some companies, still closed with staff on the TWSS, can happily carry on, its outrageous. I wondered what's worse, the PUP @ €350 pw or thousands PM being paid by the state, I think the answer very clear. Madness, you wouldn't blame TWSS recipients wanting a holiday, what else to do with all the money being handed out. Again I don't begrudge anyone but there is blatant unfairness at play here.

The PUP is also a special subsidy for employees affected by temporary business closures
Its not meant to be for permanent job losses
We already have the highest if not the highest dole in the world without this sense of entitlement that it should be over 300 quid a week to multiple householders, why would anyone work?

I do agree that people should not be going on foreign holidays when on the pup, even if they saved for it
Their circumstances have changed, they can't afford it now and it's not the states business or the taxes of those employed to be effectively paying for it The proper thing to do with companies that lay off people who were on wage subsidy would be to claw it back
Won't happen though for fear of jeopardising remaining jobs
That's understandable, if somewhat sub optimal