Jobless to be stripped of benefits if they don’t sign up to … 29519.html

Well I suppose that is one way to reduce the numbers on the live register

The only people who have to worry about this are the career Welfare Wasters and those milking it in the black economy - not those genuinely making an effort to seek employment or further training/education etc. Now, if they could only sort out the “disability” racket and the “lone parents” scam, we’d all be better off. (Sean Healy has already been on the airwaves today whinging that his precious people i.e “da most vulnerable in society,” might actually be expected to do something in return for the vast sums of money they get for doing absolutely nothing.

The career welfarist will simply sign up and do the courses and then back on welfare. I know of a good few people who used to do this during the bubble. They would also get their self employed friends to write them letters saying they applied for work.

This is just a PR stunt.

My understanding of this program is that the most pressure will fall on those who are recently unemployed but well qualified. Each claimant will be given a “probability of exit” date. The example given was that if you worked in IT and lost your job you would be told that you could be cut off after a few months if you hadn’t found work. Getback out their and pay some taxes FFS.

If you had been on the dole all your life you would be treated more sympathicly and given a much longer date.

Its all about knowing your place in the scheme of things. Some are born to contribute to the trough and some are born to be supported by their labour. If everyone tried to be a TD or a welfare queen then the system would collapse. We can’t have that.

This is talking about 457,000 training places. Happy days and plenty of deficit spending for those running training courses anyway.

Why would they want the unemployed to sign contracts?

That is weird.

am I missing something? I thought people on JB and Ja had to be ready to prove they were looking for work anyway? rejection letters etc?

I think, and I hope, that the difference will be that they will be plucking people directly from the live register and saying here look, we have a job/training for you, take it or lose your benefits. Here is an interview, turn up or we are suspending you.

Will there be abuse of the system, of course, its a system that has to deal with a range of people, from out-and-out welfare system abusers to those who were professionals all their lives and are devastated to be on the dole, and the vast majority who fall in the middle, where they can sit on their arse all day and get paid more than most of the jobs going at the moment, so what’s the point?

Of course the dole artists can do the course or whatever and stay on the dole, but if they have to get out of the scratcher every day to do some stupid course, they might just think it isn’t the idle idyll they have been enjoying for the past decade and get back into the workforce.

One not so obvious objective of these changes is to address the situation where there have been multiple instances in the last few years of employers calling various radio shows (whineline, etc.) saying they cannot get employees to take the jobs they are offering or even losing existing employees because the difference between wages and having to turn-up for work and receiving various benefits (not just unemployment benefits/job seekers allowance but the other allowances that go with it such as rent allowance, medical card, etc.) and having to do nothing makes unemployment a valid option.

The Department want employers to register vacancies with them. A candidate is then matched and told to turn up. If the person chooses not to, then they start to lose benefits.

Every time I see that stringy fucker O’Cuiv, I think of his time at Minister for Social Protection (and before him those other fuckers Mary Hanafin and Martin Cullen) tolerating widespread fraud and abuse and doing nothing. Those recently announced 650 million savings due to fraud prevention were there and available to be achieved for the last ten or more years.

At over 20 billion a year (around 57% of total annual revenue), social welfare spending is unsustainably high and needs to be reduced by at least one third.

@44K per person on the live register, yeah it’s too high. Personally I’d prefer to see them focus first on how this is targeted a la childrens allowance etc. I dont need it. But the fuckers fund it easier to kick the unemployed than face the unions with other disgusting forms of social welfare being handed out with largesse. … 22581.html

Sadly they have been achieved pretty much every year. That’s because the Dept of social welfare figures on fraud are to some extent fraudulent. Most of the time they’re doing things like catching payments that always go on a few weeks longer than they should due to some known ongoing but uncorrected inefficiency in the system.

Then they take that few weeks saving, extrapolate what it would have cost if it had gone for a full year and claim a large saving.

This is a little like not buying a 2.50 cup of coffee one morning and announcing to the world you’ve in fact saved almost 1000 euro a year.

They’ve been releasing those kind of fraud figures for over a decade now, e.g. they were claiming around 268m back in 2002, ( if they were real cumulative numbers, we could fund the country on the fraud “savings” rather than taxes. I may be mixing up my government departments but I think these exaggerated claims had something to do with when they decided to pay senior civil servants bonuses so they started talking up their more measurable achievements.

Agreed, there’s absolutely no way that the Pajamas peope, Junkies and Alcoholics are going to get kicked off welfare.
They’ll get reclassified as disabled or something.

So they extrapolate? Very interesting

B Hayes is such a muppet

You’d never think that 10 years later he’d sit as a Junior Minister in Finance and allow Millions and Billions of debts to be secretly written off in NAMA. No publishing of names there.

telling people they have to “turn up” for an interview doesn’t mean they will get offered a job…and considering how hard you have to fight to get a job, it shouldnt be too hard to see that you dont get it, if you dont really want to?

Exactly! The dole brigade will just turn up en mass to these interviews, mention heroine habits or whatever to make sure they dont’ get the job, and go back to the dole. So the department of welfare is now even busier, trying to track all these interviews, and struggling small business now have to provide entertainment both the department and the welfare brigade.

So the net result is the dole brigade have to turn up to the odd interview, take the piss, and go back to the welfare. The odd one will get caught out, and the minister and the department will hail this as productive and march around in triumph. Meanwhile the national debt grows higher.

What I want to know is are people going to be forced to become free labour for private business?

I know of number of people who recently were made redundant from their jobs and got a very decent redundancy package. They have a nice little nest egg and a partner working. So they decide to take up to 1 year off on jobseekers benefit as it’s not means tested. These people are perfectly employable and in fact 2 of them were offered jobs (without even trying) which they turned down because they wanted to enjoy the summer off.

I’m sure if these people were forced to attend interviews/explain why they’re not taking jobs they’d sooner be back at work.

I know the example above is a small % of the un-employed and people may argue that they’ve paid PRSI all their lives etc so they’re entitled to claim it but its a whole lot better for the economy and all tax payers if employable people get back to work as quickly as they can.

The 2nd type of employed that this initiative will deal with is those who are working but are claiming dole and not paying any tax. There are plenty of long-time unemployed like this - maybe it’s just the circles I move in but I could easily name 10 individuals of the people I know without even looking too hard. This is rife and always was with people who work in the trades.

I welcome this initiative and think its about time it was done - of course it should have been done in the tiger years because then the media would not have a chance to claim there are no jobs out there. The will always be some jobs available but maybe not doing exactly what you want to do or paying as much as you want.

I know it doesn’t seem like it from what I said above but I admire and want to live in a country that has a good social welfare system BUT only for those who truly need it and it should never be a short-term or long-term better option for anyone.

You will find that it is cheaper on multiple levels to have less people working (70/80% of the population) . The vast majority of “jobs” are superfluous to requirements that sustain human existence.