Proposal for Welfare change (16)
Didnt want to see this sink as it looks like a good idea, to tired to be honest to actually think about it and respond sensibly.
Hopefully it will still be here tomorrow when my brain is rested,
Hopefully it will still be here tomorrow when my brain is rested,
ardera: Just reading the post about welfare cheats and decided to post this. It has been milling around in my head for some time. Question for you all - do you see anything wrong with this proposal -
Let the Dept of Employment create another "scheme" (if thats the correct word) Instead of "Job Seekers Allowance" call it "Job Supporting Allowance" Let me explain -
We had to let our secretary go, as we couldnt afford to cover her salary, not because there was no work for her. She is now on job seekers allowance which equates to approx 80% of her monthly salary when she was with us.
My proposal is that instead of the state supporting her while she is looking for a job why don't they "support her" in keeping her existing job?? She would still be liable for prsi, paye, usc etc and would end up with less than the dole BUT she would be contributing to the economy and have a feeling of self worth (no, Im not trying to get at people on here who are out of work).
Every year, her dole would be reduced by 25% with the view that, as the country out of recession, the company could afford to pay more of her salary thereby reducing the states liability!!
Of course there are people who will ride the system but it could take x,000's of people off the live register (and their dole money would effectively be reduced as they are paying taxes)
On a larger note - Last week there was a supermarket that closed and 70 staff lost their jobs. The owner said that he could not afford the salaries in the current climate. The company was a local firm in the same town for 40 years, so not a multi-national just here to make money. If the dept of employment stepped in there, the dole contribution per staff member would have been reduced from day one (prsi, paye etc), the company would have a life line for the next 4 years. 70 families would have a secure future, 70 mortgages would still be paid etc etc etc.
Now I know that there are "holes" in that idea but they could be resolved.
Anyone know a minister who wants to make a difference??? I have loads of ideas....
Let the Dept of Employment create another "scheme" (if thats the correct word) Instead of "Job Seekers Allowance" call it "Job Supporting Allowance" Let me explain -
We had to let our secretary go, as we couldnt afford to cover her salary, not because there was no work for her. She is now on job seekers allowance which equates to approx 80% of her monthly salary when she was with us.
My proposal is that instead of the state supporting her while she is looking for a job why don't they "support her" in keeping her existing job?? She would still be liable for prsi, paye, usc etc and would end up with less than the dole BUT she would be contributing to the economy and have a feeling of self worth (no, Im not trying to get at people on here who are out of work).
Every year, her dole would be reduced by 25% with the view that, as the country out of recession, the company could afford to pay more of her salary thereby reducing the states liability!!
Of course there are people who will ride the system but it could take x,000's of people off the live register (and their dole money would effectively be reduced as they are paying taxes)
On a larger note - Last week there was a supermarket that closed and 70 staff lost their jobs. The owner said that he could not afford the salaries in the current climate. The company was a local firm in the same town for 40 years, so not a multi-national just here to make money. If the dept of employment stepped in there, the dole contribution per staff member would have been reduced from day one (prsi, paye etc), the company would have a life line for the next 4 years. 70 families would have a secure future, 70 mortgages would still be paid etc etc etc.
Now I know that there are "holes" in that idea but they could be resolved.
Anyone know a minister who wants to make a difference??? I have loads of ideas....
Im with G there ill have to think of a good answer BUT there is a scheme for employers where if they take on staff from either schemes are jobseekers they are exempt from paying PRSI for that employee for 12 months which actaully is alot of money..
but you have a good idea there
ardera: Just reading the post about welfare cheats and decided to post this. It has been milling around in my head for some time. Question for you all - do you see anything wrong with this proposal -
Let the Dept of Employment create another "scheme" (if thats the correct word) Instead of "Job Seekers Allowance" call it "Job Supporting Allowance" Let me explain -
We had to let our secretary go, as we couldnt afford to cover her salary, not because there was no work for her. She is now on job seekers allowance which equates to approx 80% of her monthly salary when she was with us.
My proposal is that instead of the state supporting her while she is looking for a job why don't they "support her" in keeping her existing job?? She would still be liable for prsi, paye, usc etc and would end up with less than the dole BUT she would be contributing to the economy and have a feeling of self worth (no, Im not trying to get at people on here who are out of work).
Every year, her dole would be reduced by 25% with the view that, as the country out of recession, the company could afford to pay more of her salary thereby reducing the states liability!!
Of course there are people who will ride the system but it could take x,000's of people off the live register (and their dole money would effectively be reduced as they are paying taxes)
On a larger note - Last week there was a supermarket that closed and 70 staff lost their jobs. The owner said that he could not afford the salaries in the current climate. The company was a local firm in the same town for 40 years, so not a multi-national just here to make money. If the dept of employment stepped in there, the dole contribution per staff member would have been reduced from day one (prsi, paye etc), the company would have a life line for the next 4 years. 70 families would have a secure future, 70 mortgages would still be paid etc etc etc.
Now I know that there are "holes" in that idea but they could be resolved.
Anyone know a minister who wants to make a difference??? I have loads of ideas....
Let the Dept of Employment create another "scheme" (if thats the correct word) Instead of "Job Seekers Allowance" call it "Job Supporting Allowance" Let me explain -
We had to let our secretary go, as we couldnt afford to cover her salary, not because there was no work for her. She is now on job seekers allowance which equates to approx 80% of her monthly salary when she was with us.
My proposal is that instead of the state supporting her while she is looking for a job why don't they "support her" in keeping her existing job?? She would still be liable for prsi, paye, usc etc and would end up with less than the dole BUT she would be contributing to the economy and have a feeling of self worth (no, Im not trying to get at people on here who are out of work).
Every year, her dole would be reduced by 25% with the view that, as the country out of recession, the company could afford to pay more of her salary thereby reducing the states liability!!
Of course there are people who will ride the system but it could take x,000's of people off the live register (and their dole money would effectively be reduced as they are paying taxes)
On a larger note - Last week there was a supermarket that closed and 70 staff lost their jobs. The owner said that he could not afford the salaries in the current climate. The company was a local firm in the same town for 40 years, so not a multi-national just here to make money. If the dept of employment stepped in there, the dole contribution per staff member would have been reduced from day one (prsi, paye etc), the company would have a life line for the next 4 years. 70 families would have a secure future, 70 mortgages would still be paid etc etc etc.
Now I know that there are "holes" in that idea but they could be resolved.
Anyone know a minister who wants to make a difference??? I have loads of ideas....
yeah sounds like a good idea but would want the companies books and assets made freely available to the state to prove it was a genuine case,
The EU/IMF run the country now so I doubt whether they would approve of such a proposal, anyway I'm ideologically opposed to supporting failed businesses be it banks or otherwise.
On the surface I think it's a great idea and if everybody like all the selfless CS members, put the country's needs first, then it would be great.
BUT knowing human nature as I do and the greed we have as human beings there would be 2 things happen.
Those already unemployed will see themselves as actually working for the 20% you mentioned as they could already get 80% on the dole....
AND
Greedy employers would start threatening to lay people off pleading poverty knowing full well that the government will pay them 80% of their wage bill! Now that their costs are reduced, they can cut prices and employers who act honestly can no longer compete!
Like I said, it sounds great on the surface but apart from you and me, just how many selfless people do you know?
BUT knowing human nature as I do and the greed we have as human beings there would be 2 things happen.
Those already unemployed will see themselves as actually working for the 20% you mentioned as they could already get 80% on the dole....
AND
Greedy employers would start threatening to lay people off pleading poverty knowing full well that the government will pay them 80% of their wage bill! Now that their costs are reduced, they can cut prices and employers who act honestly can no longer compete!
Like I said, it sounds great on the surface but apart from you and me, just how many selfless people do you know?
Godsgift: Ah. Altrism is alive and well!
Well do you believe that ALL Irish owned banks should have been allowed go bust in 2008, yes I believe in survival of the fittest when it comes to dtermining viable vs unviable businesses.
kennyfromdublin: Well do you believe that ALL Irish owned banks should have been allowed go bust in 2008, yes I believe in survival of the fittest when it comes to dtermining viable vs unviable businesses.
I would have let them (the banks)go to the wall and their directors along with them rather than continuing to pay out every bonus! The ECB would have stepped and have had to take the risks instead of the tax payer.
Again I'm agreeing with you if you read a few posts up. The O/Ps plan would be perfect if we all had the best interests of the country at heart. But alas we all tend to have owr own best interests at heart!
ardera: Just reading the post about welfare cheats and decided to post this. It has been milling around in my head for some time. Question for you all - do you see anything wrong with this proposal -
Let the Dept of Employment create another "scheme" (if thats the correct word) Instead of "Job Seekers Allowance" call it "Job Supporting Allowance" Let me explain -
We had to let our secretary go, as we couldnt afford to cover her salary, not because there was no work for her. She is now on job seekers allowance which equates to approx 80% of her monthly salary when she was with us.
My proposal is that instead of the state supporting her while she is looking for a job why don't they "support her" in keeping her existing job?? She would still be liable for prsi, paye, usc etc and would end up with less than the dole BUT she would be contributing to the economy and have a feeling of self worth (no, Im not trying to get at people on here who are out of work).
Every year, her dole would be reduced by 25% with the view that, as the country out of recession, the company could afford to pay more of her salary thereby reducing the states liability!!
Of course there are people who will ride the system but it could take x,000's of people off the live register (and their dole money would effectively be reduced as they are paying taxes)
On a larger note - Last week there was a supermarket that closed and 70 staff lost their jobs. The owner said that he could not afford the salaries in the current climate. The company was a local firm in the same town for 40 years, so not a multi-national just here to make money. If the dept of employment stepped in there, the dole contribution per staff member would have been reduced from day one (prsi, paye etc), the company would have a life line for the next 4 years. 70 families would have a secure future, 70 mortgages would still be paid etc etc etc.
Now I know that there are "holes" in that idea but they could be resolved.
Anyone know a minister who wants to make a difference??? I have loads of ideas....
Let the Dept of Employment create another "scheme" (if thats the correct word) Instead of "Job Seekers Allowance" call it "Job Supporting Allowance" Let me explain -
We had to let our secretary go, as we couldnt afford to cover her salary, not because there was no work for her. She is now on job seekers allowance which equates to approx 80% of her monthly salary when she was with us.
My proposal is that instead of the state supporting her while she is looking for a job why don't they "support her" in keeping her existing job?? She would still be liable for prsi, paye, usc etc and would end up with less than the dole BUT she would be contributing to the economy and have a feeling of self worth (no, Im not trying to get at people on here who are out of work).
Every year, her dole would be reduced by 25% with the view that, as the country out of recession, the company could afford to pay more of her salary thereby reducing the states liability!!
Of course there are people who will ride the system but it could take x,000's of people off the live register (and their dole money would effectively be reduced as they are paying taxes)
On a larger note - Last week there was a supermarket that closed and 70 staff lost their jobs. The owner said that he could not afford the salaries in the current climate. The company was a local firm in the same town for 40 years, so not a multi-national just here to make money. If the dept of employment stepped in there, the dole contribution per staff member would have been reduced from day one (prsi, paye etc), the company would have a life line for the next 4 years. 70 families would have a secure future, 70 mortgages would still be paid etc etc etc.
Now I know that there are "holes" in that idea but they could be resolved.
Anyone know a minister who wants to make a difference??? I have loads of ideas....
why not send your ideas in to enda and eamon and especially joan as she is on record as wanting to bring in new ideas for good reform!! shorten the ideas to "letter" size and send to the times, indie etc....good stuff!
its a good idea in principle
but i can see employers letting staff go so they can keep them on at a cheaper rate
but i can see employers letting staff go so they can keep them on at a cheaper rate
ardera: Just reading the post about welfare cheats and decided to post this. It has been milling around in my head for some time. Question for you all - do you see anything wrong with this proposal -
Let the Dept of Employment create another "scheme" (if thats the correct word) Instead of "Job Seekers Allowance" call it "Job Supporting Allowance" Let me explain -
We had to let our secretary go, as we couldnt afford to cover her salary, not because there was no work for her. She is now on job seekers allowance which equates to approx 80% of her monthly salary when she was with us.....
Let the Dept of Employment create another "scheme" (if thats the correct word) Instead of "Job Seekers Allowance" call it "Job Supporting Allowance" Let me explain -
We had to let our secretary go, as we couldnt afford to cover her salary, not because there was no work for her. She is now on job seekers allowance which equates to approx 80% of her monthly salary when she was with us.....
So she is on 188 Euro a week from Jobseekers...and that's 80% of her salary????????
So You were paying her 235 Euro a week??? That's well below minimum wage if she was working a normal week!!!! The poor girl is better off on job seekers rather than working for shocking wages like that!
Were the Germans not subsidising businesses to keep jobs when the downturn first hit?
shotstopper: So she is on 188 Euro a week from Jobseekers...and that's 80% of her salary????????
So You were paying her 235 Euro a week??? That's well below minimum wage if she was working a normal week!!!! The poor girl is better off on job seekers rather than working for shocking wages like that!
So You were paying her 235 Euro a week??? That's well below minimum wage if she was working a normal week!!!! The poor girl is better off on job seekers rather than working for shocking wages like that!
That went through my mind aswell when I read your proposal. She is probably better off now because she can get a medical card and other benefits now she is not working.
I do not think the government should assist businesses by paying wages for their employees because if business was booming would the businesses do anything to return the favour the government did by keeping them afloat? It would also give businesses an unfair advantage over businesses that are still profitable and would still have to pay their employees.
People that are unemployed and are depressed sitting at home could always do voluntary work for which they would feel very much appreciated and contribute to society (I did when I was unemployed and I still do the odd bit)
tinytoes: That went through my mind aswell when I read your proposal. She is probably better off now because she can get a medical card and other benefits now she is not working.
I do not think the government should assist businesses by paying wages for their employees because if business was booming would the businesses do anything to return the favour the government did by keeping them afloat? It would also give businesses an unfair advantage over businesses that are still profitable and would still have to pay their employees.
People that are unemployed and are depressed sitting at home could always do voluntary work for which they would feel very much appreciated and contribute to society (I did when I was unemployed and I still do the odd bit)
I do not think the government should assist businesses by paying wages for their employees because if business was booming would the businesses do anything to return the favour the government did by keeping them afloat? It would also give businesses an unfair advantage over businesses that are still profitable and would still have to pay their employees.
People that are unemployed and are depressed sitting at home could always do voluntary work for which they would feel very much appreciated and contribute to society (I did when I was unemployed and I still do the odd bit)
Yes I agree. You will have business claiming they can't afford certain staff just to get the government to pay some of their wage. Certain companies reduced employees wages recently to the new minimum wage claiming they had to do it because the recession was biting into profits. When there was a review of their books it showed they were as profitable as before the recession. They were just trying to screw their staff.
I will like to know if the OP and others in his workplace were so concerned why did they all not just take a paycut so she could keep her job? If she was earning as lttle as he says then the higher earners could easily take a small wage cut to make up for her salary.
shotstopper: Yes I agree. You will have business claiming they can't afford certain staff just to get the government to pay some of their wage. Certain companies reduced employees wages recently to the new minimum wage claiming they had to do it because the recession was biting into profits. When there was a review of their books it showed they were as profitable as before the recession. They were just trying to screw their staff.
I will like to know if the OP and others in his workplace were so concerned why did they all not just take a paycut so she could keep her job? If she was earning as lttle as he says then the higher earners could easily take a small wage cut to make up for her salary.
I will like to know if the OP and others in his workplace were so concerned why did they all not just take a paycut so she could keep her job? If she was earning as lttle as he says then the higher earners could easily take a small wage cut to make up for her salary.
Totally agree with that I've been in jobs where I would have been better off on the dole. Employers in this country have always tried to screw their employees and this recession is just giving them an excuse.
tinytoes: Totally agree with that I've been in jobs where I would have been better off on the dole. Employers in this country have always tried to screw their employees and this recession is just giving them an excuse.
Yes. The OP has his profession as Architecture/Interior Design. So if he and others in the office were architects they could have taken a small % pay cut to pay her minimum wage.
More Threads
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
Nature
everything is changing
Heavy Bass In The PM
Reality Check
How far is too far?
Icebergs Still Around
Salami, Salami, Baloney
rarotonga
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
770 Views
15 Comments
Created: Jun 2011
Last Viewed: May 7
Last Commented: Jun 2011
0 Likes
Question for you all - do you see anything wrong with this proposal -
Let the Dept of Employment create another "scheme" (if thats the correct word) Instead of "Job Seekers Allowance" call it "Job Supporting Allowance" Let me explain -
We had to let our secretary go, as we couldnt afford to cover her salary, not because there was no work for her. She is now on job seekers allowance which equates to approx 80% of her monthly salary when she was with us.
My proposal is that instead of the state supporting her while she is looking for a job why don't they "support her" in keeping her existing job?? She would still be liable for prsi, paye, usc etc and would end up with less than the dole BUT she would be contributing to the economy and have a feeling of self worth (no, Im not trying to get at people on here who are out of work).
Every year, her dole would be reduced by 25% with the view that, as the country out of recession, the company could afford to pay more of her salary thereby reducing the states liability!!
Of course there are people who will ride the system but it could take x,000's of people off the live register (and their dole money would effectively be reduced as they are paying taxes)
On a larger note - Last week there was a supermarket that closed and 70 staff lost their jobs. The owner said that he could not afford the salaries in the current climate. The company was a local firm in the same town for 40 years, so not a multi-national just here to make money. If the dept of employment stepped in there, the dole contribution per staff member would have been reduced from day one (prsi, paye etc), the company would have a life line for the next 4 years. 70 families would have a secure future, 70 mortgages would still be paid etc etc etc.
Now I know that there are "holes" in that idea but they could be resolved.
Anyone know a minister who wants to make a difference??? I have loads of ideas....