Speaking as someone who has worked for minimum wage, is a tradesman and an employer, and who has done management courses I disagree with you. I hire based on attitude and intellect. You can train skill but never attitude. If I hire someone and they work well for the time they are there then that's fine by me. If they want to stay and train and learn then all the better.Fair play to you, you are a real trooper. But from an employers perspective, and based on that answer, I would unfortunately have to withdraw my offer.
You see, you have already told me in your answer that you are in the hunt for a better job. And given your (assumed) experience and qualifications I dont know how long you will hang around for.
You see im trying to run a business, to do that I need people who I can rely upon to turn up for work. I need people who I can rely on to do a good job.
I dont need someone who is already looking elsewhere before they begin and I dont need someone who is more used to more challenging experienced work. In fact, if a qualified tradesperson or professional applied for this job I would suspect something was up with you.
In any case, the point being, that unemployment is not just about whether someone will take a job. Any experienced employer will tell you that suitability is a major factor in employing someone.
The job I described is typically unsuitable for an experienced professional and is unlikely to last very long, leaving the employer to start searching again.
PS - you can learn about this in any decent business management and Labour economics course.
I dont need someone who is already looking elsewhere before they begin ...
PS - you can learn about this in any decent business management and Labour economics course.
Speaking as someone who has worked for minimum wage, is a tradesman and an employer, and who has done management courses I disagree with you. I hire based on attitude and intellect. You can train skill but never attitude. If I hire someone and they work well for the time they are there then that's fine by me. If they want to stay and train and learn then all the better.
Anyway, the excellent people in the dole office wouldn't line me up with a job which was so unsuitable.
Employers look for value, not necessary low pay rates. Paying more to the better or faster employee makes sense financially.Employers are always looking out for cheaper or better employees, employees should always be on the lookout for better opportunities or better paying employers.
No. He is actively looking for a job and hasn't turned down any opportunity. As a former hard working taxpayer, many people feel he should actually be entitled to a much higher welfare payment while in the gap until his next job. This is surely what social welfare is for after all.And if the dole office wouldnt line you up with such an unsuitable job, then as of now, (in this hypothetical scenario) you are still unemployed and freeloading on the back of hard working taxpayers.
I agree, there should be no universal payments. All children's allowance is is the state taking your money and then giving it back to you less there very high handling charge.These conversations make me laugh. We must end the welfare state and the spongers. I am a higher tax rate employee. I don't want to pay for freeloaders anymore than the next person but as I sit here I can claim children allowance that is the biggest waste of money paid by the State as an universal payment and yet nobody ever mentions it. Easier to shout cut the dole I suppose sitting behind your desk.
Pretending to be available for work, as defined by Welfare, while not actually being willing to follow the rules is fraudulent.Not going to work is not fraudulent
Someone who has worked, as you mentioned, for 20 years earning above average salary should in my opinion receive far higher dole payments than the scrounger round the corner, for the simple reasons that (1) they have paid more tax and (2) they are far more likely to want to get back to work.
Employers look for value, not necessary low pay rates. Paying more to the better or faster employee makes sense financially.
There are indeed. Some of them are even worth the paper they are written on. I don't give any credence to reports by the Trade Union propaganda office; the Nevin Research Institute, just as I don't take Fox News seriously.So you disagree with me, which is fine. But, as someone who you accuse of knowing very little about economics, would you agree that there are studies and theories pertaining to the economics of job suitability?
I don't get your point here.Certainly, by your own comment, it appear that the nice people in the dole office have done some research in that regard.
if someone is really seeking work and is willing to take whatever job is on offer then they are not freeloading.And if the dole office wouldnt line you up with such an unsuitable job, then as of now, (in this hypothetical scenario) you are still unemployed and freeloading on the back of hard working taxpayers.
Excellent, we are getting somewhere!I agree. If the arguement against welfare is the disincentive to work, then a counter to that would be to provide welfare equal to the value of your last paid job. This would reduce incrementally the longer someone was unemployed, thus providing the motivation to return to work at some point.
Also any notion to not bother working at all would be diminished. Clearly there would have to be some stringent guidelines, but the principle of it should apply.
I agree. There are bad employers and bad employees. Both cause problems.I think that distinction between value and low pay/costs is lost on many employers alas! And not just employers.
Pretending to be available for work, as defined by Welfare, while not actually being willing to follow the rules is fraudulent.
Excellent, we are getting somewhere!
Pretending to be available for work, as defined by Welfare, while not actually being willing to follow the rules is fraudulent.
Excellent, we are getting somewhere!
Did it ever occur to you that people who go to such lengths are not really of value to employers?
There is a dramatic figure of some €660m of fraud control savings in Social Protection reports. But that figure is an estimate of what would be fraudulently claimed if Social Protection did not carry out its checks.
The real figures of fraud are a fraction of this, with % ranging between 0.00 and 2.5% of the various types of claims being identified as fraudulent and error (that is, claims where it was found that an overpayment was made).
firefly .
{they,d learn pretty quick!}
Learn that they are banjaxed etc ? From what I know the (dole) is the minimum that keeps body and soul together.
Your comments are at best too harsh,
Try living on the dole amount for a while , apart from the money issue its so so disheartening for the VAST majority of those on it.
It is neither their choice or wish.
I think if the dole was reduced significantly enough they'd learn pretty quick!
odyssey06.
System is not pulling people away from work,
If that were so ,surely more and more would (opt) for unemployment.