H
If you meet the relevant qualification criteria. If you are at home minding the baby full time as suggested by the original post then, chances are, you are not genuinely seeking and available for work which would rule you out.cosy said:you are well entitled to draw UB.
holly32 said:I just cant bare to leave my 4mth old into a creche and I have no family near me to look after him.
Nobody is disputing that Welfare employees are are sound or unnecessarily propogating bad vibes here as far as I can see. They are simply pointing out the rules as they stand.cosy said:There is alot of confusion and bad vibes about drawing Social Welfare. I deal with social welfare as part of my job and can I tell you in general they are sound people dealing with some very difficult clients.
Telling them something that is not true constitutes a fraudulent application. The original post strongly suggests that holly32 will not be genuinely available for and seeking work. If this is the case and she lies then she is attempting to engage in welfare fraud. One way or another she should apply for UB/UA and answer all questions truthfully. If she does qualify then she will be paid the benefit/assistance. If not then she won't. She should not file a fraudulent claim though and anybody who recommends such a course of action is not giving prudent advice.If you "loose" your job as in Holly32 case (she has it in writing) you are entitled to draw UB as long as you are (tell them) that you are actively seeking employment.
If she is minding her child full time (as suggested by the original post) then she is not genuinely available for work and, consequently, she does not meet one of the UA/UB qualification criteria.power1 said:B) Being available and genuinely seeking work - If Holly32 is looking for work by making job applications and registering with FAS then she is satisfying the criteria and not doing anything illegal (She is entitled to take her time to find the right job in line with her career goals)
As I recall from my own time on UB, Welfare may require you to attend the FAS centre and engage in activities there rather than remotely.C) She may be asked to consider training with FAS to help her get a job. I would suggest doing an online course with FAS which she can do at home in her own time.
Please note the posting guidelines and desist from personalised comments. This is not a case of the high moral ground. It's a case of determining what the relevant qualification criteria are and when these are met. In any individual's case this decision will utimately be made by Welfare but...power1 said:There is no disputing that Clubman holds the high moral ground on this particular topic
... encouraging individuals to be anything other than honest and open in their dealings with Welfare is, at best, not prudent and, at worst, facilitating or enouraging fraud.As Lionel Hutz would say theres the truth and "the TRUTH"
...
I dont think Holly32 should lie but she could be economical with the truth!
...
In my opinion, if Holly32 can "technically" satisfy the terms of the scheme then she should go for it!
This is all irrelevant to the substantive issue under discussion.... am confident that she will pay back and more in PRSI what she has received over the remainder of her working life. Her child will be another valuable addition to the country and will help to fund my retirement in years to come!!!
Before anyone points out that PRSI is not mean't to be savings to be used when you want..I fully agree but in this particular circumstance I would make an exception.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?