Peter McVerry Trust staff and wages

BDI · 06-12-2019 11:55pm

Goldengirl wrote: »

So how much should that person who does that get for amalgamating several charities and running them?!
Most of them do different things and are based in a variety of locations throughout the country.

If he is paid 200 000 a year it’ll be a saving.

end of the road · 06-12-2019 11:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Beggars and choosers. When the options are "a gaff in Roscommon" versus "16 months in a hotel followed by a gaff on your Ma's road", of course she doesn't want to go. If it was as bad as the various bleeding hearts would have you believe, you'd better believe they'd be biting the hand off you for a house ANYWHERE.

How come it's illegal to shove Mary into somewhere she doesn't want to go, yet perfectly legal to force John Q Taxpayer into a gaff in Wexford and a 5hr round trip to work every day? You think they want to go live in a commuter belt 160 kilometres from their workplace?

they wouldn't if it was going to potentially increase their costs and remove their support network.

end of the road · 07-12-2019 12:01am

BDI wrote: »

If he is paid 200 000 a year it’ll be a saving.

1 large organisation with what, a couple of thousand employees? i'd say you would be looking into the 400k mark for a CEO with the experience of managing an organisation of that size. then you would probably need a local management structure to manage it on a local level.so, i would think no savings really.

LirW · 07-12-2019 12:13am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How come it's illegal to shove Mary into somewhere she doesn't want to go, yet perfectly legal to force John Q Taxpayer into a gaff in Wexford and a 5hr round trip to work every day? You think they want to go live in a commuter belt 160 kilometres from their workplace?

Because as it stands it's social housing policy and this issue isn't really talked about. It is virtually impossible to move people to different councils, because every Irish council has a waiting list and an emergency list themselves. People in need of housing have to apply where they live.

I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to move long-term unemployed further out if there would be a policy allowing it but not every place is suitable for it. If Mary and her lot are somewhat problematic, there needs to be Garda presence and if Mary doesn't drive she needs certain basic amenities close by.
This is where she differs from John: John has a budget and can work within that budget. It's up to him to decide to buy in a town or rural and consider carefully what suits his needs.

BDI · 07-12-2019 12:24am

end of the road wrote: »

1 large organisation with
what, a couple of thousand employees? i'd say you would be looking into the 400k mark for a CEO with the experience of managing an organisation of that size. then you would probably need a local management structure to manage it on a local level.so, i would think no savings really.

I bet you a good honest CEO could could divide the management and board numbers by the number of charities. I think 200 00 is a fair wage for that.

07-12-2019 12:29am

LirW wrote: »

Good point, unless homeless people are unproblematic, they might face resistance from the community. You're fine as long as you don't cause any trouble. If your kids make it their hobby to harass the local children and are notoriously hard to integrate you are not welcome and locals will make sure to get their point across.
We got a problematic tenant to leave in the past because the whole community stood up to them together.
Small communities often appreciate new influx but not the wrong kind.

Hence why you need some sort of service that makes sure chaotic families are sustainably worked with in order to be able to keep a stable home for a longer period of time.

all im hearing is how much expense and bending over backwards everyone has to do for people that are **** all use to anyone including themselves, and how much trouble these people are.

hows this for a plan:

- nobody gets to own their own home from social housing, ever. thatd clear the tactical cloggers out.
- social housing is *going to be* in a less desirable area. get over it, or do what everyone else does about it and meet your own housing need
- you or your kids are hassle while in social housing or on list for the same, youre off the list
- if you're a junkie, or a rough sleeper with mental health issues, treatment and rehabilitation trump the rather nebulous concept of your vitally important rights to choose which bush you live under tonight

the best-practice, "service-user" centric model that you insist is the model to follow doesnt exist in a vacuum- everybody else pays for it multiple times:

tax to pay for services to look after their every need
the prioritisation of them in in-demand locations because of their learned and constantly re-enforced helplessness
the absolute balls that the encouragement of every lazy sod or hard luck story to fling themselves on the dole, on the housing list- on to all of the services that should be a last resort for citizens- makes of housing, health, social protection, you name it
the ****in misery that the blank cheques written for their behaviour perpetuates on neighbours, landlords, tourists, commuters, you name it

the utter focus on meeting every bloody whim and last want of those least willing to help themselves or anyone else is all well and good if they were they only people who mattered in the country, but they aren't and it is completely galling to approach things as if they were when discussing it.

where is the onus or push for them to contribute one iota, let alone learn to not be a total drain/nuisance themselves?

its a hard pill to swallow to be constantly told that they have it so hard, and more should be done for them- good for you if you can make a living out of it, but it cannot be difficult to see why the whole approach sticks in the craw of so many.

"but what about the poor cratúrs?"

well, exactly. what about them?

07-12-2019 12:32am

Goldengirl wrote: »

What source? Without the charities you are giving money straight to an addict who will only feed his addiction, and the only ones benefiting there are drug lords and off licenses.

you're completely correct.

give him nothing.

end of the road · 07-12-2019 12:38am

Deleted User wrote: »

How come it's illegal to shove Mary into somewhere she doesn't want to go, yet perfectly legal to force John Q Taxpayer into a gaff in Wexford and a 5hr round trip to work every day? You think they want to go live in a commuter belt 160 kilometres from their workplace?

john tax payer wants to own a property.
he has a car and can support himself to the full.
he might like amenities in his area but has decided, not to worry if not, i can drive to them if i have the time and want to use them, so has decided he probably can forego them for the cheaper property for which he is more likely to be able to pay back the mortgage in full on and will be able to own.
poor mary is either unemployable, may have addiction or mental health issues, maybe uneducated etc, and needs a serious amount of extra supports which really only exist in the city, as it has been deemed to be possibly not cost effective to implement them in rural rareas due to low population and the cost of infrastructure and all else to make the rural areas attractive for the required population dencities to make it all cost effective.
also, areas outside the city are themselves very likely over-stretched and have their own waiting lists so quite likely cannot take on any more people.

ShamNNspace · 07-12-2019 12:39am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

all im hearing is how much expense and bending over backwards everyone has to do for people that are **** all use to anyone including themselves, and how much trouble these people are.

hows this for a plan:

- nobody gets to own their own home from social housing, ever. thatd clear the tactical cloggers out.
- social housing is *going to be* in a less desirable area. get over it, or do what everyone else does about it and meet your own housing need
- you or your kids are hassle while in social housing or on list for the same, youre off the list
- if you're a junkie, or a rough sleeper with mental health issues, treatment and rehabilitation trump the rather nebulous concept of your vitally important rights to choose which bush you live under tonight

the best-practice, "service-user" centric model that you insist is the model to follow doesnt exist in a vacuum- everybody else lays for it multiple times:

tax to pay for services to look after their every need
the prioritisation of them in in-demand locations because of their learned and constantly re-enforced helplessness
the absolute balls that the encouragement of every lazy sod or hard luck story to fling themselves on the dole, on the housing list- on to all of the services that should be a last resort for citizens- makes of housing, health, social protection, you name it
the ****in misery that the blank cheques written for their behaviour perpetuates on neighbours, landlords, tourists, commuters, you name it

the utter focus on meeting every bloody whim and last want of those least willing to help themselves or anyone else is all well and good if they were they only people who mattered in the country is galling. where is the onus or push for them to contribute one iota?

its a hard pill to swallow to be constantly told that they have it so hard, and more should be done for them- good for you if you can make a living out of it, but it cannot be difficult to see why the whole approach sticks in the craw of so many.

"but what about the poor cratúrs?"

well, exactly. what about them?

I feel your pain big time but I'm listening to country music on Bbc4 and enjoying a glass I find it puts a rosier hue on society

Goldengirl · 07-12-2019 12:46am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

all im hearing is how much expense and bending over backwards everyone has to do for people that are **** all use to anyone including themselves, and how much trouble these people are.

hows this for a plan:

- nobody gets to own their own home from social housing, ever. thatd clear the tactical cloggers out.
- social housing is *going to be* in a less desirable area. get over it, or do what everyone else does about it and meet your own housing need
- you or your kids are hassle while in social housing or on list for the same, youre off the list
- if you're a junkie, or a rough sleeper with mental health issues, treatment and rehabilitation trump the rather nebulous concept of your vitally important rights to choose which bush you live under tonight

the best-practice, "service-user" centric model that you insist is the model to follow doesnt exist in a vacuum- everybody else lays for it multiple times:

tax to pay for services to look after their every need
the prioritisation of them in in-demand locations because of their learned and constantly re-enforced helplessness
the absolute balls that the encouragement of every lazy sod or hard luck story to fling themselves on the dole, on the housing list- on to all of the services that should be a last resort for citizens- makes of housing, health, social protection, you name it
the ****in misery that the blank cheques written for their behaviour perpetuates on neighbours, landlords, tourists, commuters, you name it

the utter focus on meeting every bloody whim and last want of those least willing to help themselves or anyone else is all well and good if they were they only people who mattered in the country is galling. where is the onus or push for them to contribute one iota?

its a hard pill to swallow to be constantly told that they have it so hard, and more should be done for them- good for you if you can make a living out of it, but it cannot be difficult to see why the whole approach sticks in the craw of so many.

"but what about the poor cratúrs?"

well, exactly. what about them?

Don't disagree with what you are saying . Except we will all pay in many ways if homelessness and addiction is not factored in as issues on which more focus is needed .

Goldengirl · 07-12-2019 12:47am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you're completely correct.

give him nothing.

Ha ha only seeing this now!

end of the road · 07-12-2019 12:50am

BDI wrote: »

I bet you a good honest CEO could could divide the management and board numbers by the number of charities. I think 200 00 is a fair wage for that.

the market i have a feeling would think otherwise, and ultimately what it thinks is what will matter when it comes to the wages of CEOS and other management positions due to the experience that may be required and the going wage for such experience.
an organisation as you propose is unlikely to be able to get a CEO with the required experience to manage it for 200k, if that was possible then plenty of other operations would only be paying that for a CEO, in fact that would be the going wage.
you would likely still require the current management positions of the charities to be filled so as to manage them on a local and possibly even a service level.

Goldengirl · 07-12-2019 12:53am

BDI wrote: »

I bet you a good honest CEO could could divide the management and board numbers by the number of charities. I think 200 00 is a fair wage for that.

Don't see prospective CEOs with experience of managing a few thousand employees, and various local boards of management queueing around the block for that remuneration, whether you think it's fair or not ðŸ™„

07-12-2019 12:56am

ah im ranting now again, and im the first to get annoyed when i see others at it

i do believe in service provision. we do need to ensure people get a hand up and have a decent basic standard of living while getting it. addiction and mental health problems are a curse and a complex challenge

but there simply has to be a point to helping yourself, and there has to be a benefit to putting in the effort.

and i think that if you lose sight of that, things start to spin out of control rapidly. blame the eu, govt, the wider economic outlook, blame brexit.

blame whatever.

but a society that prioritises non-contributory or actively anti-societal behaviours will, in the long run, perpetuate those behaviours, and that is relevant to the discussion.

LirW · 07-12-2019 1:00am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

all im hearing is how much expense and bending over backwards everyone has to do for people that are **** all use to anyone including themselves, and how much trouble these people are.

hows this for a plan:

- nobody gets to own their own home from social housing, ever. thatd clear the tactical cloggers out.
- social housing is *going to be* in a less desirable area. get over it, or do what everyone else does about it and meet your own housing need
- you or your kids are hassle while in social housing or on list for the same, youre off the list
- if you're a junkie, or a rough sleeper with mental health issues, treatment and rehabilitation trump the rather nebulous concept of your vitally important rights to choose which bush you live under tonight

the best-practice, "service-user" centric model that you insist is the model to follow doesnt exist in a vacuum- everybody else lays for it multiple times:

tax to pay for services to look after their every need
the prioritisation of them in in-demand locations because of their learned and constantly re-enforced helplessness
the absolute balls that the encouragement of every lazy sod or hard luck story to fling themselves on the dole, on the housing list- on to all of the services that should be a last resort for citizens- makes of housing, health, social protection, you name it
the ****in misery that the blank cheques written for their behaviour perpetuates on neighbours, landlords, tourists, commuters, you name it

the utter focus on meeting every bloody whim and last want of those least willing to help themselves or anyone else is all well and good if they were they only people who mattered in the country is galling. where is the onus or push for them to contribute one iota?

its a hard pill to swallow to be constantly told that they have it so hard, and more should be done for them- good for you if you can make a living out of it, but it cannot be difficult to see why the whole approach sticks in the craw of so many.

"but what about the poor cratúrs?"

well, exactly. what about them?

Sweet rant bro, but I think you haven't read the thread.

To give you a short, sweet summary: You'll always have spongers, in every country and this sucks, yeah. Currently it is impossible to move people to other parts of the country as per state policy that everyone in need of housing has to apply for it in their own council, councils refuse applications on the grounds that applicants are not from the area (same applies for emergency accommodation). So shipping the full time unemployed off to East Mayo isn't going to happen.

If people are homeless due to mental health issues or addiction they need long term treatment and support. Rural areas are not geared for this. The healthcare system is not able to provide the services needed, the waiting lists are long and there simply aren't enough spaces. This is where charities come in, various charities provide a vast array of support services for different kind of homeless people.
I don't expect you to relate to someone with severe issues, most people from a stable background can't but it would be a good idea to accept the fact that there are people out there that fight an uphill battle since they are little.

I get you're pissed off at people scamming the system but this happens because the housing policy is in a deadlock requiring people to be housed locally. I can't change this policy, sorry. There also doesn't seem political willingness to create a national housing list that relocates long-term unemployed further away from employment hot spots.
And if this would happen, not every place is suitable for everyone, some rural housing requires the need of a car, problematic tenants can't be housed in a community full of elderly, these things generally don't end well for the community.
Living in a small rural community myself without a local school, church, transport or Garda presence, it would be devastating if problem tenants would be moved in mindlessly. It happened in the past, they ended up leaving because the closest addiction facility is 30 minutes away, they of course weren't allowed to drive.

So yeah, things are overall not great, but I can't do anything about it. Also I have no idea where you get the impression I'm the last bastion of unemployed Mary with 5. I just see it pragmatic that she a) can't be moved because government policies prevent this and b) not every property is suitable depending on her ability to get around and service needs. If Mary drives she has no problem being remote, if she can't she'd needed to be housed in a bigger village that has a school for the children, a post office and a shop because a council property 5km outside away from everything on a hill is not the right thing in this case.

07-12-2019 1:13am

LirW wrote: »

Sweet rant bro, but I think you haven't read the thread.

ive held my hands up over the pointless rant. im trying to be better! but:

- the housing policy could be changed
- i worked several years frontline housing so not totally ignorant of policy, practicalities and potential
- i wouldnt know the first thing about coming from a stable background, alas

anyways, if i can continue to step back, i will only reiterate what i think is the cogent point: yep, ideally all you say is provided, as you say. but when theres a squeeze, the kickback when the do-leasts get ahead of everyone else is a toxic influence on the overall social conscience, and charities such as pmcv trust are in a strange position overall to be as vocal as they are for the rights of their target users ahead of their funders.

LirW · 07-12-2019 1:13am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

but a society that prioritises non-contributory or actively anti-societal behaviours will, in the long run, perpetuate those behaviours, and that is relevant to the discussion.

I don't think society accepts or even prioritises this lifestyle, it's more that there is no interest in a political level to so something about it. Criminals aren't convicted properly, people can't be locked up because prisons are full, policies make it impossible to evict council tenants terrorising their immediate area.
There was a thread here recently of someone planning to sell their house because the local teenagers terrorised this family. The general consensus was: why is this happening, why can't anyone do something about this widespread problem? Nobody knows why. Everybody knows what the logical course of action would be to make it stop but somehow the enacted policies prevent this.
I don't know how to solve this or make it better.
I just know that we unfortunately have to accept this as status quo, because there is not a single party in this country interested in fixing this hot mess of bullsh*t.

Also addicts and severe mental illness make it literally impossible for people to take responsibility of their own lives, that's why they need intense long-term help. Same goes for a number of trauma victims. Current homeless numbers consist of everything from addicts, to chancers to domestic abuse survivors to extremely unlucky people. They are not a homogeneous conglomerate.

07-12-2019 1:16am

LirW wrote: »

I don't think society accepts or even prioritises this lifestyle, it's more that there is no interest in a political level to so something about it. Criminals aren't convicted properly, people can't be locked up because prisons are full, policies make it impossible to evict council tenants terrorising their immediate area.
There was a thread here recently of someone planning to sell their house because the local teenagers terrorised this family. The general consensus was: why is this happening, why can't anyone do something about this widespread problem? Nobody knows why. Everybody knows what the logical course of action would be to make it stop but somehow the enacted policies prevent this.
I don't know how to solve this or make it better.
I just know that we unfortunately have to accept this as status quo, because there is not a single party in this country interested in fixing this hot mess of bullsh*t.

ha, the softer im getting about it all, the harder you're getting.

edit: this was not a double-entendre

LirW · 07-12-2019 1:26am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

ive held my hands up over the pointless rant. im trying to be better! but:

- the housing policy could be changed
- i worked several years frontline housing so not totally ignorant of policy, practicalities and potential
- i wouldnt know the first thing about coming from a stable background, alas

anyways, if i can continue to step back, i will only reiterate what i think is the cogent point: yep, ideally all you say is provided, as you say. but when theres a squeeze, the kickback when the do-leasts get ahead of everyone else is a toxic influence on the overall social conscience, and charities such as pmcv trust are in a strange position overall to be as vocal as they are for the rights of their target users ahead of their funders.

What you just said made me think of one thing that maybe could be done better but would impact funding I guess: when the public is asked to donate homeless charities advertise with well-spoken, groomed people that just fell on hard times. They are not representative for the vast array of homeless.
But then again how could you secure funding when you're not pulling on heartstring but show a suicidal addict in a really bad state? My brief time in fundraising taught me, that people that can't relate to the cause, are not interested.
Maybe there should be a better representation of who the homeless really are. And maybe media should stop entertaining the ones that cry loudest and overstretch the public patience by demanding everything for themselves without even thinking of giving anything back.

LirW · 07-12-2019 1:30am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

ha, the softer im getting about it all, the harder you're getting.

edit: this was not a double-entendre

I get the feeling we somehow talk around each other but I think we generally agree on the consensus regarding useless housing policies that cause a large portion of the problem in the first place :-)

wetlandsboy · 07-12-2019 1:35am

BDI wrote: »

Level 8 degrees, that’s public service talk for qualified nurse or anyone with a degree.

So true. “Qualified professionals” ?! ðŸ§

07-12-2019 1:48am

LirW wrote: »

I get the feeling we somehow talk around each other but I think we generally agree on the consensus regarding useless housing policies that cause a large portion of the problem in the first place :-)

we certainly are fully agreed that lumping 11000 people under one banner and calling it "homelessness" is profoundly counterproductive.

it triggers exactly the type of division that quite likely suits the status quo benefactors, who must be delighted to see the middle-lower earners so easily baited into distraction

in fact, i think from tonight on ill be a marxist for a while.

no war but a class war, comrades

end of the road · 07-12-2019 2:13am

wetlandsboy wrote: »

So true. “Qualified professionals” ?! ðŸ§

yes qualified professionals.
that is exactly what they are.
qualified in the relevant fields that their job requires them to be qualified in so that they can do the job and work in the field they have qualified to be in.

BDI · 07-12-2019 2:31am

Goldengirl wrote: »

Don't see prospective CEOs with experience of managing a few thousand employees, and various local boards of management queueing around the block for that remuneration, whether you think it's fair or not ðŸ™„

A few thousand employees. We have ten or so thousand (questionable) people on the houseing list.
We have maybe a few hundred (if even) rough sleepers and a massive hotel bill and you don’t think the system needs to be streamlined. Has every staff member got one homeless person each?

Are the staff fighting the move to rural areas because they would then have to move to rural areas?

Why are we building a society that instead of making hostels safer we are encouraging rough sleeping?

I should probably get vetted and go down there and sort this mess out.

end of the road · 07-12-2019 3:03am

BDI wrote: »

A few thousand employees. We have ten or so thousand (questionable) people on the houseing list.
We have maybe a few hundred (if even) rough sleepers and a massive hotel bill and you don’t think the system needs to be streamlined. Has every staff member got one homeless person each?

no, chances are they will have multiple people.
the system is as streamlined as it is possible to be given all relevant factors and realities.

BDI wrote: »

Are the staff fighting the move to rural areas because they would then have to move to rural areas?

no .
they are against it because they are sensible, because it would change nothing, probably cost an even bigger fortune, and would probably end up being a repeat of the previous similar policy that lead to social only estates and the anti-social behaviour issues which the government refused to tackle until it got to much hence regeneration.

BDI wrote: »

Why are we building a society that instead of making hostels safer we are encouraging rough sleeping?

we aren't encouraging rough sleeping. in fact, we are discouraging it.
rough sleeping has always, and will always be a thing for various reasons.
it won't be solvable in every type of case.
hostels aren't safe because like everything else law enforcement wise, we haven't got enough gards and spaces to deal with criminals because we don't want to pay for them. well, some of us are happy to, but it seems it's not an election issue.

BDI wrote: »

I should probably get vetted and go down there and sort this mess out.

you do that, but you won't sort anything out.

Jimmy Bottlehead · 07-12-2019 10:12am

It's quite sad at this point that a very small number of posters are actively trying to insult staff members, and have the audacity to think they could singlehandedly solve a crisis.

LirW · 07-12-2019 10:21am

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

It's quite sad at this point that a very small number of posters are actively trying to insult staff members, and have the audacity to think they could singlehandedly solve a crisis.

There's nothing holding anyone back to start a political party and propose their changes to the public.
Some independent politicians are quite successful.

But in reality no one wants to do it because it's easier to bite from the comfort of the couch.

anewme · 07-12-2019 10:25am

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

It's quite sad at this point that a very small number of posters are actively trying to insult staff members, and have the audacity to think they could singlehandedly solve a crisis.

That was my point earlier about **** stirring and trying to get a rise out of people belittling their qualifications, questioning their earnings, when these people have clearly stated they work on the frontline daily and in challenging situations.

Lack of respect and extremely poor form.

CEO?

Barstool CEO maybe?

corner of hells · 07-12-2019 11:12am

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

It's quite sad at this point that a very small number of posters are actively trying to insult staff members, and have the audacity to think they could singlehandedly solve a crisis.

Yeah , but they're good fun.

mickdw · 07-12-2019 11:24am

If this wage bill is normal and expected and anyone querying it is pounced upon, why is it that 99 times out of 100 when charity pieces are aired on tv, we get an audience full of volunteers stating how they do this that and the other free after work. This is all to be admired and gets the cash flowing in no doubt.
If the same tv item was aired where for example the late late show studio was filled with paid employees with them also overspilling to the corridors and out into the car park, I doubt it would prove as beneficial to the charity.
People are being conned to a point.
No doubt Peter himself is genuine but I'd imagine the entire trust is out of control now.
Sure people need to be paid but 18 million is one hell of a wage bill.

salmocab · 07-12-2019 11:38am

mickdw wrote: »

Sure people need to be paid but 18 million is one hell of a wage bill.

Well that’s surely relative to the amount of employees? If you have ten staff then that’s a big payroll if you have 500 it’s not.

Mad_maxx · 07-12-2019 11:50am

Deleted User wrote: »

all im hearing is how much expense and bending over backwards everyone has to do for people that are **** all use to anyone including themselves, and how much trouble these people are.

hows this for a plan:

- nobody gets to own their own home from social housing, ever. thatd clear the tactical cloggers out.
- social housing is *going to be* in a less desirable area. get over it, or do what everyone else does about it and meet your own housing need
- you or your kids are hassle while in social housing or on list for the same, youre off the list
- if you're a junkie, or a rough sleeper with mental health issues, treatment and rehabilitation trump the rather nebulous concept of your vitally important rights to choose which bush you live under tonight

the best-practice, "service-user" centric model that you insist is the model to follow doesnt exist in a vacuum- everybody else pays for it multiple times:

tax to pay for services to look after their every need
the prioritisation of them in in-demand locations because of their learned and constantly re-enforced helplessness
the absolute balls that the encouragement of every lazy sod or hard luck story to fling themselves on the dole, on the housing list- on to all of the services that should be a last resort for citizens- makes of housing, health, social protection, you name it
the ****in misery that the blank cheques written for their behaviour perpetuates on neighbours, landlords, tourists, commuters, you name it

the utter focus on meeting every bloody whim and last want of those least willing to help themselves or anyone else is all well and good if they were they only people who mattered in the country, but they aren't and it is completely galling to approach things as if they were when discussing it.

where is the onus or push for them to contribute one iota, let alone learn to not be a total drain/nuisance themselves?

its a hard pill to swallow to be constantly told that they have it so hard, and more should be done for them- good for you if you can make a living out of it, but it cannot be difficult to see why the whole approach sticks in the craw of so many.

"but what about the poor cratúrs?"

well, exactly. what about them?

please run for office .

Mad_maxx · 07-12-2019 12:32pm

LirW wrote: »

I don't think society accepts or even prioritises this lifestyle, it's more that there is no interest in a political level to so something about it. Criminals aren't convicted properly, people can't be locked up because prisons are full, policies make it impossible to evict council tenants terrorising their immediate area.
There was a thread here recently of someone planning to sell their house because the local teenagers terrorised this family. The general consensus was: why is this happening, why can't anyone do something about this widespread problem? Nobody knows why. Everybody knows what the logical course of action would be to make it stop but somehow the enacted policies prevent this.
I don't know how to solve this or make it better.
I just know that we unfortunately have to accept this as status quo, because there is not a single party in this country interested in fixing this hot mess of bullsh*t.

Also addicts and severe mental illness make it literally impossible for people to take responsibility of their own lives, that's why they need intense long-term help. Same goes for a number of trauma victims. Current homeless numbers consist of everything from addicts, to chancers to domestic abuse survivors to extremely unlucky people. They are not a homogeneous conglomerate.

we arent completely helpless to effect change , a mass boycott of the tv licence is one way to fight back , RTE is a left wing propoganda machine on steroids , they sh1te on about the homelessness , direct provision every day of the week yet have never once done a report on the epidemic proportions of non payers in social housing accommodation and if evictions took place of said rent dodgers , you can bet your bottom tax euro that RTE would be out with the violins for the freeloaders , claiming they are " the most vulnerable "

many other journalists are of the same mindset , they despise the notion of personal responsibility and have an attitude that if some feral scrote has a hundred convictions , its the fault of someone in clontarf or trim who has a degree through hard work and a nice mortgaged home .

only RTE however is funded by our taxes , RTE give the likes of peter Mc verry a foot massage every time he is on , him and brian darcy are the only men of the cloth they have anytime for as they are both leftists

until a vaguely conservative media outlet emerges in this country , the middle classes will be treated with contempt and the delinquents will not only be let run riot , they will continue to be held in sneaking regard by the overtly marxist media

Mad_maxx · 07-12-2019 12:37pm

Goldengirl wrote: »

Totally respect Brother Kevin and the Capuchin Friars and what they do , but its apples and oranges . One is a food bank, warm place to shelter during the day , and soup kitchen, and the other is providing housing, counselling and is 24/ 7.

one provides help for the destitute , the other is a major player in an ever growing and increasingly powerful political arm of the left ( the poverty industry )

Mad_maxx · 07-12-2019 12:38pm

anewme wrote: »

Whether you like McVerry or not; he is Political, he is Egotistical (which he admits), he is one of the good guys. Strong characters can be divisive, he is dogged, but he has made a difference where it counts.

he wants to make it illegal to evict tenants or mortgage defaulters , hes an enemy of the tax payer

he also is untouchable within the media , at near micheal D levels of worship

tayto lover · 07-12-2019 12:50pm

salmocab wrote: »

Well that’s surely relative to the amount of employees? If you have ten staff then that’s a big payroll if you have 500 it’s not.

Well if 90% of the money going to charities is spent on wages as has been suggested then something needs to change. That’s far too much. It defeats the purpose.

Ronin247 · 07-12-2019 12:56pm

salmocab wrote: »

Well that’s surely relative to the amount of employees? If you have ten staff then that’s a big payroll if you have 500 it’s not.

I think the point is that if you have have a wage bill of €18.6 million for 500 people when in reality you only need 100 people then you are doing something wrong. This is only one of the homeless charities... there are 2000 full time employees in the homeless charity industry. If you spend €74.4 million supporting 10600 homeless then that is over €7000 per "homeless" person . Plus the hundreds of civil servants working in the sector, and we provide accommodation and dole to the vast majority of these homeless people.
Something is rotten in the state of Ireland.

corner of hells · 07-12-2019 1:49pm

Ronin247 wrote: »

I think the point is that if you have have a wage bill of €18.6 million for 500 people when in reality you only need 100 people then you are doing something wrong. This is only one of the homeless charities... there are 2000 full time employees in the homeless charity industry. If you spend €74.4 million supporting 10600 homeless then that is over €7000 per "homeless" person . Plus the hundreds of civil servants working in the sector, and we provide accommodation and dole to the vast majority of these homeless people.
Something is rotten in the state of Ireland.

Are you suggesting reducing the staffing levels by 4/5s across the board , or in specific roles ?

To give you an idea of what frontline staffing levels are needed,for every 6 or so residents in low threshold accommodation, you need one social care worker.

4000 are not collecting the dole and a significant amount are on a disability payment.

salmocab · 07-12-2019 1:53pm

Ronin247 wrote: »

I think the point is that if you have have a wage bill of €18.6 million for 500 people when in reality you only need 100 people then you are doing something wrong. This is only one of the homeless charities... there are 2000 full time employees in the homeless charity industry. If you spend €74.4 million supporting 10600 homeless then that is over €7000 per "homeless" person . Plus the hundreds of civil servants working in the sector, and we provide accommodation and dole to the vast majority of these homeless people.
Something is rotten in the state of Ireland.

Well yes if you only need 100 then yes it’s wasteful but do they only need 100? I’m sure as I’ve said on this thread that there is waste and probably unnecessary duplication but that’s not the charities or their staffs fault. The money is spent on a lot of things which even if all these people were homes would still need to be spent anyway. To be clear I know very little about this particular charity and when he’s on the radio he annoys the crap out of me, however charities are a necessity because the state won’t or can’t do the job. I’m also sure plenty of charities are an absolute waste from the point of view of what they deliver versus what they get.

BDI · 07-12-2019 2:00pm

There was an aggressive fella here earlier saying he makes food, while administering medication while helping a guy who overdosed. While providing councilling and taking a knife from an aggressive guy, while filling out houseing forms and welfare forms.

If he does all this why do we need so many staff.

salmocab · 07-12-2019 2:02pm

BDI wrote: »

There was an aggressive fella here earlier saying he makes food, while administering medication while helping a guy who overdosed. While providing councilling and taking a knife from an aggressive guy, while filling out houseing forms and welfare forms.

If he does all this why do we need so many staff.

Surely that makes it sound like they need more staff?

BDI · 07-12-2019 2:05pm

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Did they do 25 hour shifts with 25 residents and 2 staff? Administer medications, do key work and progression work for residents? Did they have to regularly have to worry about needle sticks and wear sharps gloves when doing their regular duties? How often did them have to inject noloxone into the thighs of overdosing residents to save their lives? How many times did they have to travel in ambulances or sit in A&E for 14 hours with sick or suicidal residents?

Social care staff don't just sit there spooning out bowls of soup FFS. They are specialized qualified professionals with level 8 degrees who's practice is informed by decades of social science theory who provide a service most of the general public wouldn't do for twice the wages because they feel like it's a service that needs to be provided and are willing to step up and deliver it.

Social care is, hands down, one of the most difficult, underpaid, and under appreciated professions imaginable.

Look one guy does all this, then the other thousands of employees need to pick up the slack.

anewme · 07-12-2019 2:06pm

salmocab wrote: »

Surely that makes it sound like they need more staff?

Yeah and if one person does all that and the armchair CEO still whinges about paying 37k, no wonder he's aggressive.

BDI · 07-12-2019 2:09pm

anewme wrote: »

Yeah and if one person does all that and the armchair CEO still whinges about paying 37k, no wonder he's aggressive.

But if we have two people completely looking after 25 homeless people why do we have thousands of staff when there is only 100 or so real homeless people in Dublin.
Maybe a few hundred. The rest are in the social welfare system.

How many people are taking a wage while Marcos and people like him do all the work?

Like 2000 full time employees and countless volunteers.

tayto lover · 07-12-2019 2:26pm

salmocab wrote: »

Surely that makes it sound like they need more staff?

Nope. It sounds like a disorganised outfit.

salmocab · 07-12-2019 2:33pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Nope. It sounds like a disorganised outfit.

Whatever that place sounds like to people I dont think it sounds disorganised. People are now just saying things and somehow despite the low beginning this thread has got worse. Very few people know what these charities do but are happy to claim they aren't doing it well.

eviltwin · 07-12-2019 2:58pm

BDI wrote: »

There was an aggressive fella here earlier saying he makes food, while administering medication while helping a guy who overdosed. While providing councilling and taking a knife from an aggressive guy, while filling out houseing forms and welfare forms.

If he does all this why do we need so many staff.

You know fcuk all about social care and the responsibility of the worker. You are required to do whatever is in your skill set to manage a situation.

tayto lover · 07-12-2019 3:01pm

salmocab wrote: »

Whatever that place sounds like to people I dont think it sounds disorganised. People are now just saying things and somehow despite the low beginning this thread has got worse. Very few people know what these charities do but are happy to claim they aren't doing it well.

The post about the lad cooking food, dishing out medication, disarming someone of a knife etc etc sounds like disorganisation to me though. Bad rostering at least.

BDI · 07-12-2019 3:03pm

tayto lover wrote: »

The post about the lad cooking food, dishing out medication, disarming someone of a knife etc etc sounds like disorganisation to me though. Bad rostering at least.

But the fella doing the roster has a level 8 degree and his mother works for the paper.

anewme · 07-12-2019 3:18pm

BDI wrote: »

But the fella doing the roster has a level 8 degree and his mother works for the paper.

Trying to belittle others to big yourself up is a very poor trait in a person.

Easy pickings.

Peter McVerry Trust staff and wages

Comments