Beechwoodspark wrote: » 200 until a confirmation check done, then zero or full restoration
blanch152 wrote: » Public servants have also been stopped going on holidays as well, because they have been told that they need to take unpaid leave for the quarantine period which will cost them money. It is harsh but correct from a public health point of view. I have no sympathy for the bleating of the entitlement class.
Dempo1 wrote: » Now now, let's not throw well paid and pensioned public servents into this debate, are you seriously suggesting a unionised public servant will have wages stopped, I think not, look at the issue in hand, PUP Recipients being discriminated against and it now appears unconstitutionally. Absolutely agree no unnecessary travel, but equal rules for everyone
Dempo1 wrote: » But the most important issue with reducing or indeed stopping payment is its been proven to be unconstitutional, typically Leo shoots his mouth off, a mad scramble insues to change wording on websites but of course the actual ministerial order makes NO MENTION OF PAYMENTS BEING AFFECTED, I suspect those who had payment stopped have serious grounds for appeal and potentially compensation and from what's being discussed a crossed the Airways this morning legal experts saying government on shakey ground here.
runawaybishop wrote: » Its not unconstitutional to only make payments available to people in the state, where are you getting this from?
Dempo1 wrote: » Dear God, Heather Humphries digging a bigger hole this morning on news talk, stating and I quote, 2012 law permits social welfare payments to be cut. Of course what Heather has forgotten, the Legislation re PUP is actually only being debated today to put it under statutory footing. Further as I've stated, the sneaky ministerial order she signed 2 weeks ago is just that an order, temporary guidence and if that weren't bad enough, her order made NO MENTION of anyone's payment being affected by travelling. To add insult to injury, she further states we don't pay people living abroad? Just a bizzare statement, has she forgotten pensions to those who live say in Spain in winter months etc, indeed is she aware of SW entitlements being transferable across THE EU. Finally the PUP is a distinct payment not necessarily treated under normal SW legislation, it is not means tested and its entlement requirements seem to be managed by the stroke of a website managers keyboard Just shocking incompetence
blanch152 wrote: » https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/79973/6cbfabcd-af64-4baf-9a9a-7d8bcfc564f4.pdf#page=null "The Irish authorities require anyone coming into Ireland, apart from Northern Ireland, to restrict their movementsfor 14 days.Responsibility to provide for the period of restricted movementarising from non-essential travel overseas is a matter for each individual employee. Where there is an intention to undertake non-essential travel overseas,all employees must make provision by way of an annual leave or unpaid leave application for the additional period of restricted movement, in line with the normal rules applying in the relevant sector.The requirement that employees advise their employer of travel abroad is necessary for the protection of public health. " That applies to cleaners, caretakers and clerical officers, some of whom are getting less than the Covid payment. PUP recipients are not being discriminated against, as it applies to a lot of different social welfare payments. As I said, this is a public health issue, the same people who have been bleating about Americans coming into the country are crying and whinging about the PUP payment being stopped.
Dempo1 wrote: » But the most important issue with reducing or indeed stopping payment is its been proven to be unconstitutional
Fann Linn wrote: » Blanch is right on this one! I'm a PS and have received at least 3 emails from my boss stating that if I go abroad I've to quarantine for 14 days at my own expense unless I've got holidays to cover same.
Dempo1 wrote: » Again missing the point, I don't agree anyone should be penalised in the way Blanch sets out and I apologise if I came across unreasonable re public servants but I am compl focused on the point being debated, blanket discrimination of PUP recepients all of whom have been put on this payment because of lockdown and closed businesses.
Dempo1 wrote: » Unconstitutional in the sense they've stopped a statutory payment with ZERO LEGISLATION to back up such a decision, take a look at the ministerial order, not a mention of payments being cut or worse still stopped, indeed just for the record, the actual full legislation re THE PUP is only being debated today.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Its loads of people on this thread that dont like people on the dole.
runawaybishop wrote: » The travel advisory is irrelevant and that lad hasnt a clue. You must be in the state to get pup. Many of our welfare payments have this clause.
wrote: In general you can take up to 2 weeks holidays each year and have your social welfare payment paid. However you must always contact your local Intreo Centre, Social Welfare Branch Office or your Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection (DEASP) representative (formerly known as the Community Welfare Officer) to check your entitlements before planning or taking holidays. If you plan to take longer holidays or to be abroad for an extended period your social welfare payment may not be paid.
runawaybishop wrote: » Those lunatics. Pup payments are for those genuinely unable to work and seeking work. You arent seeking work lying on a lounger in Spain.
seamus wrote: » No it hasn't. There are questions about whether stopping someone's welfare payments for travelling, amounts to denying them the right to travel, but it's an open one. Personally have no issue with the concept that if you're on any form of temporary needs allowance (as opposed to disability benefit, etc), that your right to leave the state should be limited. And in the context of PUP and the situation we find ourselves in at the moment, it's more than a little farcical that someone could claim an emergency pandemic payment and then go off on a foreign holiday. "Am I just supposed to stay home and lose my deposit?". Yes, Karen. Yes you are. Though whatever genius in the DoSP thought that sending people in hi-vis jackets to Dublin Airport was a good idea, has probably found themselves on a career-limiting path at this stage. Would have made far more sense to interview people on the way back in and quietly pull them that way.
TomTomTim wrote: » Maybe that's the case now, but it wasn't until recently, which is the point.https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/claiming_a_social_welfare_payment/going_abroad_and_social_welfare_payments.html It's simply the fact that they are changing general standards to suit themselves which I have an issue with. If this was always their stance then fine, but it wasn't for years.
ChelseaRentBoy wrote: » It's not just this thread it's the site in general. People on social welfare are viewed upon as scum who all have 2020 cars in the drive way and go on holidays at least twice a year. Iv'e been on welfare before for 8 months and 2 years on another occasion and i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
blanch152 wrote: » It is harsh but correct from a public health point of view. I have no sympathy for the bleating of the entitlement class.
runawaybishop wrote: » How is it discriminatory exactly, many SW payments state you must be in the country to get them.
blanch152 wrote: » They are changing general standards because there is a public health emergency - denying a lad sitting on his arse a holiday is a small measure compared to what the population has had to put up with.
meeeeh wrote: » I think the majority of people whose payment was cancelled were leaving the country. You can't check on return because then you miss everyone leaving for good.
yrreg0850 wrote: » By anybody going on unnecessary foreign , they are likely to cause more trouble for the underpaid front line workers . who probably cannot afford either the time or the cost.
TomTomTim wrote: » My problem is that they are attaching a penalty to advise, advise should not come with a penalty, it's goes against the very nature of an advisory policy. If they want it to be legally consistent they need to make it illegal to leave the country, otherwise it's a legal mess.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b9d7cf56a75eee6d7dd35aa28294f673.svg)
