Social Welfare too high - discouraging people from taking up jobs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

orka

Registered User
Messages
1,014
There have been two letters to the Irish Times from employers experiencing issues with employing people. On Monday, a guy opening a new restaurant received 400 applications - but only five were Irish - and the the five Irish were full time students. Today, the owner of an SME describes his search for a semi-skilled employee on 28K + company van + overtime - he got 200 applications and, separately, offered the job to two people, both of whom had been out of work for more than two years. Both said they would take the job but then turned it down saying they were better off on social welfare with rent allowance etc. - even taking account of the back to work allowance.

In my view, this is just wrong - benefits shouldn't discourage people from accepting a reasonable job offer. It's hard to blame the people themselves - when the choice is less money plus time away from home/family vs. more money plus all day at home/with family - who wouldn't make that choice? The system is wrong when this happens - and it makes perpetuating the out-of-work cycle more likely - children will grow up in a home where there is no-one working - so the norm becomes 'sit at home and get state money' - they will have known nothing else.
 
That's a very interesting post. I wonder about how honest the potential employer is being though ... 5 applications from Irish people? Given the number of applications mentioned, and anecdotal evidence to the contrary, that strikes me as extremely odd.

On the other hand, I myself got some part time work and my employer said that people on FAS courses which would cost thousands couldn't do it because they'd lose their places (we're talking Cisco exams, etc.) Something should be done to accommodate these people. Nothing should stop people from taking up work as they improve themselves.

I have a great suspicion of employers in this country though. During the 'boom' I worked for a multi-millionaire who was the biggest skinflint going ... and I knew plenty like him. These guys want the biggest and most expensive Merc / BMW's and 4 holidays per year, but are the first to complain about the cost of employees, who make them the money in the first place!

The dole is too high in a way, in another it's not. A TV license is almost one week's payment. Car insurance is half a week's payment. Half decent shopping for one person is 1/4, petrol is over €1.50 a litre ... the cost of living needs to come down and despite lots of talk, I see no evidence of it having happened. Everything went and stayed bananas after the great consumer - rape otherwise known as the introduction of the euro.
 
From an article in the post this weekend:

"The most basic rate of welfare payment for the long-term unemployed amounts to €188 weekly in Ireland. That is equivalent to €819monthly.The most basic rate of welfare payment for the long-term unemployed in Germany (Hartz IV) amounts to €359 monthly, less than 45 per cent of the Irish rate."

There should never be an incentive not to work. Nor should there be an incentive to commit crime. In fact, both of these mindsets should be frowned upon, and actively discouraged. (Note that I am not talking about people who are unable to work)
Alas in Ireland we encourage ciminality, laziness and irresponsibilty at every level. It's disheartening.
 
I'm pretty sure I read that letter before and I'm calling shenanigans on it.

If I'm an employer offering a job I'd have given an indication of salary and would only expect applications from genuine candidates.

If I'm looking for someone on a relatively low salary I would offer it to someone I knew wanted the job, would accept the job, and having accepted it would work hard in the job. It's ageist I know, but I would offer that job to a young person without family as I would know they would fulfill those criteria.

I don't accept that someone who needs a job and wants a job would turn one down even if it offered nothing more than benefits.

Any interviewer worth their salt would figure out the character of the person they were interviewing pretty quickly and wouldn't be offering a position to a person who then turns it down to sit home playing on the X-Box, especially when there were 200 candidates to choose from.
 
Howitzer said:
I don't accept that someone who needs a job and wants a job would turn one down even if it offered nothing more than benefits.
Click to expand...

You'd like to think that alright, but you are wrong. I have firsthand experience of it. But I won't go into writing about it here, as anecdotal evidence could fill up pages and pages and never get us closer to consensus. Only when enough people experience something will things change. That is the way of things.
 
I also have first hand experience and would say the opposite, but the long and short of it is that if I had 200 candidates and the first turned me down I'd offer it to the next one.

I wouldn't spend 1 second worrying about the first person and their reasons. I'd get on with running my business, not sending letters to the Times.
 
So people on the dole should be able to afford TVs and cars?
Why?

I'm sick of paying for other people's benefits.
 
Howitzer said:
I also have first hand experience and would say the opposite,
Click to expand...
So you have first hand experience of people being offered jobs and accepting them? erm, I think that's the way it's supposed to work so I hope all of us have experience of this!
Howitzer said:
I wouldn't spend 1 second worrying about the first person and their reasons. I'd get on with running my business, not sending letters to the Times.
Click to expand...
He is doing a service though to the rest of us who aren't employers who don't know what is happening to impact the spending of our taxes. I'm not happy to know this but I'm glad I do - blissful ignorance is not so wonderful with the state our economy is in.
 
We are expanding in work at the moment. We have the same problem we’ve always had; finding skilled people. We need young people with a good attitude who want to learn but we need skilled people as well. Despite pay levels ranging from €28’000 to €80’000 we can’t find people with the right skills. Over the last few years we have found them but they’ve been from England, Poland, Latvia, India and Russia.

Is welfare too high? Yes, but our lack of skills and belief that we are somehow better than our competitors also plays against us.
 
umop3p!sdn said:
So people on the dole should be able to afford TVs and cars?
Why?
Click to expand...

+1

Cost of Living estimates should be based on essential items, not luxury. It was only in the last few years they actually took out the cost of cigarettes from this calculation. Effectively for the entire Social Partnership period, wage and welfare increases were influenced by the rising costs of cigarettes.
 
I posted about this before the budget last december.
At the time, my friend who has 3 children, was entitled to €415 a week unemployment benefit and €480 a month children's allowance. That amounts to €27,340 a year nett.
He is a home owner but if he was renting he would get an allowance to cover his rent, which would add approx 10k to that figure.
 
Purple said:
Is welfare too high? Yes, but our lack of skills and belief that we are somehow better than our competitors also plays against us.
Click to expand...

I think part of what's wrong is the belief that it's the function of the State to ensure that jobs are provided to match available skills.

We have a high proportion of low skilled workers whose refusal to recognise and challenge their vulnerability to long-term unemployment is damaging themseleves and the country.
 
umop3p!sdn said:
So people on the dole should be able to afford TVs and cars?
Why?

I'm sick of paying for other people's benefits.
Click to expand...


I think its important to distinguish what you mean here.

There is 'the dole'. What this really means is Jobseekers Allowance and Jobseekers Benefit. One of these is based on your PRSI contributions (can never remember which one off hand), and it lasts a year or so before it is means tested. Ive absolutely no issue with this allowing people to have TVs and cars. One would hope - this is a stopgap while the person gets another job.

But then there is the means tested one, plus the range of other benefits that one might be 'entitled' to (and in some cases accessed fraudently or accessed correctly but fraudently supplemented with black market/cash in hand). Someone who suffers from a severe dose of laziness and entitlement could live a reasonably nice lifestyle on these handouts - and imo - that is wrong.

I firmly believe the social welfare system in this country needs a massive overhaul - and I know from posts Ive read on AAM that many other people feel the same way.

I too have firsthand experience of people refusing to work because 'ill lose me benefits' - and the benefits are worth more than the low pay of an unskilled job. Thats just wrong - there should never be a situation where staying on benefits is preferable to working.
 
Isn't that 480 a month a universal benefit he would get whether or not he was unemployed? Or are you just aggrandizing the amount for effect?
 
Ture Howitzer, but he has no childcare costs because himself or the wife don't work. I have 3 children myself but the children's allowance would not cover what we pay to have the children minded while we are in work.
I wouldn't swap places with him, but just pointing out that the system doesn't encourage people to get back to work.
 
Last edited:
truthseeker said:
Ive absolutely no issue with this allowing people to have TVs and cars. One would hope - this is a stopgap while the person gets another job.
Click to expand...

+1

Exactly. A lot of people in this country - while they themselves are doing okay - are only too willing to bash those below them, with petty remarks about "oh they have mobile phones" or "they drive a car" or "they smoke" instead of looking at the class above where the real money goes (Seanie Fitzpatrick, etc.)

I wondered how long it would be before these kind of 'arguements' came up. Sure, we all know career dole-ists. The problem with the current system is that for career dole-ists it's a lot of money per week. For those actively seeking a job it's certainly not.

We had something like 160,000 people on the dole during the boom. Why were they left on it? I'm all for helping people off it, but urinating on them isn't going to produce a good outcome. Several people on SW have paid taxes for years, so all they are getting back is a little bit of their own money.

Last but not least, we have the 'Interview allowance'. This is available through CWO's, and amounts to €150. Who needs 150 quid to go to an interview? That should be split up into 3 installments of 50, with proof of attendance required in each case. There are umpteen ways to cut out waste - of which there is loads - in the system.

As for needing more staff to oversee all this, well, what was the Croke park agreement supposed to be for?
 
Howitzer said:
Isn't that 480 a month a universal benefit he would get whether or not he was unemployed? Or are you just aggrandizing the amount for effect?
Click to expand...

Yep, people on high incomes shouldn't get childrens allowance. I get around €7'500 per year in tax free welfare from the state because I have 4 children. That's crazy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register