Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33
  1. #1
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberace
    Looking for work in APS, but refuse to be on the dole on principle.
    It is called the Job Search Allowance. If done properly and following the rules honestly the discipline involved helps people get jobs. When I was retrenched I discovered that job hunting takes a very methodical approach and 20 -30 hours a week.

    If you are actively seeking work then you should get the dole not for the money
    but because the rules help make you organise yourself properly.

  2. #2
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    509

    I don't buy it...

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidflude
    It is called the Job Search Allowance. If done properly and following the rules honestly the discipline involved helps people get jobs. When I was retrenched I discovered that job hunting takes a very methodical approach and 20 -30 hours a week.

    If you are actively seeking work then you should get the dole not for the money
    but because the rules help make you organise yourself properly.

    If you are unemployed than you have time to look for work. If u need 20-30 hrs a week then you are disorganised if you can't find the time. I work 20 hrs per week and still find at least 20 hrs a week to apply for work.
    Lee Forace

    Forace´s Legacy - Swap off when you are down.

    It's better to set goals that one cannot acheive than to settle for mediocrity.

  3. #3
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,360
    I've split this so we can mouth off on this subject without derailing the other thread.

    I couldn't really care what the Howard government calls it. Hoop Jump Allowance would be the most accurate description. If it was a proper job search scheme then people would not be subjected to Work For The Dole in spite of studies showing that WFTD does not consistently improve employment prospects (it tends to use up more time for less skills than just looking for work - although it is a lottery and some get lucky and get to do something useful.)

    My main objection to the dole is its bureaucratic inflexibility. The government might think it can define what is the best way for a person to look for work honestly and properly, but for different people it will actually vary considerably. To require a person to apply for jobs they will not realistically get is absurd. The more regulation you have (and Centrelink is drenched in it) the more the risk that a person will undeservedly slip through the holes in your welfare net.

    Another issue I have with the current dole is that because the requirements Centrelink set are often not very enforceable, the system strongly encourages people to lie - but also catches out and punishes some of those who do so. The system may "work" in many cases if used correctly but - being coercive and negative but also incompletely enforceable - it doesn't encourage people to use it correctly

    I've successfully avoided this nonsense apart from two short spells several years ago but many of the best people I know are on it. When I see, for instance, someone who has made internationally released CDs caught in a net of bureaucratic idiocy, it makes me quite annoyed. As a taxpayer (and since the GST we are all taxpayers) I don't begrudge any number of genuine dole-bludgers mooching off my earnings. They can keep it, the taxes I'd want a refund on first are those going to unsavoury politicians.

    The way I'd deal with the issue is (i) totally abolish the activity test - people should be required to register properly with recruiting agencies and should be cut off if they refuse a reasonable job offer, but no more than that (ii) index governing-party politician salaries inversely to the unemployment rate, as measured by a proper measure rather than the defective one they have now.

    I have hereby discharged my leftie rant obligations for this fortnight.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 16-02-2006 at 12:28 AM.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    The way I'd deal with the issue is (i) totally abolish the activity test - people should be required to register properly with recruiting agencies and should be cut off if they refuse a reasonable job offer, but no more than that ...
    So lets say I register with a recruiting agency ... but I don't bother to apply properly for jobs (e.g. I submit false or "stupid" resumes), in fact, I do nothing ... don't turn up for any interviews ... etc.

    Are you still going to pay me the dole?

    If not, on what basis ... and how would that basis be substantially different from the current activity test requirements?
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  5. #5
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    I don't understand why people take the moral high ground against the unemployed for a couple of reasons.

    1-The middle class get family tax breaks through centrelink which ammount to pretty much the same amount of money, if not more.
    2- Capitalist societies do not function properly with fullemployment.
    3-The dole is a right that was fought for by working people and was historically supported by the state.
    4- Most of the money is immediately put back into the economy anyway..with most poor people's dole income simply being redirected to property owners and corporate supermarkets.
    5- People would beome much more radicalised in the west if there was no dole. Politically speaking, the dole is a liberal form of coercive guarantee which helps to prevent the poor from revolting against the rich.
    6- It helps artistic people to develop their talent. As an example...A friend of mine who was a leading chess player in one Australian state was given a choice. Work in a factory full time or get cut off the dole. My friend pointed out that he realistically had chances to represent Australia in the Olympics at chess and that working in a factory would basically kill his creativity. The job provider actually agreed with him, but told him he had no choice he must take the job. As if factory work was his future. As if we do not benefit by having such people create chess masterpieces. Nevertheless he took the job and was sacked about 8 weeks later. He told me this was a relief as the job was just destroying him.

    cheers fg7

    cheers Fg7
    Last edited by firegoat7; 16-02-2006 at 11:49 AM.

  6. #6
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    5- People would beome much more radicalised in the west if there was no dole. Politically speaking, the dole is a liberal form of coercive guarantee which helps to prevent the poor from revolting against the rich.
    it should be remembered it's ...

    the department of social security

    (what's beneath the centrelink facade)

    not

    the department of personal dignity

    ...

    as far as spending 20 -30 hours per week

    B/S

    i'd say the pareto principle would apply:

    80% of the desired result would occur in the first 20% of allotted time

    do the job searching efficiently

    then spend the rest of the time expanding your horizons

    there's no shame being on the dole; only in doing nothing self development wise while on it.
    .

  7. #7
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty
    So lets say I register with a recruiting agency ... but I don't bother to apply properly for jobs (e.g. I submit false or "stupid" resumes), in fact, I do nothing ... don't turn up for any interviews ... etc.

    Are you still going to pay me the dole?
    I think expecting people to submit a proper resume to some kind of registration service (whether it's a Government-approved recruiting agency or some kind of centralised registration process like used to exist) is fine. I also think expecting people to turn up to interviews they get through that is fine. What I object to is the system of forcing people to directly apply for specified numbers of positions or contact specified numbers of employers per unit of time.

    If under my envisaged system a few people managed to submit mickey-mouse resumes with a view to staying unemployed, I don't care, because it's better to have too much slack than too little when it comes to welfare.

    firegoat takes this a little bit further than I do but makes a lot of excellent points all the same. I'd prefer even to have a completely unconditional dole than the system we have now. I'm no expert but I see no strong economic reason why it can't be done - we had far less conditional dole schemes in much harsher economic times than these.

    I see the current policy as being talkback-driven - the government doing its best to appease right-wingers banging on about their taxpayer $$$ being mooched off.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  8. #8
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840

    minimal activity test

    if you have been on the dole for a long time front up to one employer per day and say:

    hello,

    (shake hands and smile)

    i've been on the dole for X number of years

    if you don't like this either PUT UP or SHUT UP!!
    .

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    So in the scenario I outlined above, you would not stop paying me the dole, you would let me continue as long as I wanted. If everyone who was unemployed decided to do that (unlikely I admit), you wouldn't stop them? What about if a substantial chunk of the working population decided that was a decent scam and decided to stop working and go on the dole instead? How would you fund this policy from a presumably ever-shrinking tax base?

    The problem I see with the policy proposed is that it does nothing about the few parasites that milk the system and expect everyone else to pay their way for them. The vast majority of unemployed people are genuine. Nobody wants to make their life tougher ... its tough enough already. I have been unemployed fairly recently, and its no picnic. But to have no punative measures seems to open the whole system up to massive abuse.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  10. #10
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic

    there's no shame being on the dole; only in doing nothing self development wise while on it.
    To go where? To be what?

    Damn right there is no shame!! Who ever decided that doing nothing was ever shameful? Don't we all just want to sit in the sun and relax? Isn't that the dream of retirement?

    Cheers Fg7
    P.S In the 70's surfers could mail their dole forms from Indonesia as they travelled the globe, surfing. I say this is entirely appropriate and good for both the Australian and Indonesian economy. Much better then sitting in a one bedroom flat in urban Australia, desperately accumulating debt as you struggle to eat properly. Why should looking for work be the key criteria for the dole if by definition Capitalism can never produce full employment?

  11. #11
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty
    The problem I see with the policy proposed is that it does nothing about the few parasites that milk the system and expect everyone else to pay their way for them.
    Let us just the record straight here. The Australian economy is not going to crash because of "the few parasites that milk the system" on unemployment benefits. The Australian economy will most probably crash again, as it always eventually does, because of the sheer power of the few parasites that milk the system who force us to live in an unsustainable system.

    cheers Fg7

  12. #12
    CC International Master Watto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty
    So in the scenario I outlined above, you would not stop paying me the dole, you would let me continue as long as I wanted. If everyone who was unemployed decided to do that (unlikely I admit), you wouldn't stop them? What about if a substantial chunk of the working population decided that was a decent scam and decided to stop working and go on the dole instead? How would you fund this policy from a presumably ever-shrinking tax base?

    The problem I see with the policy proposed is that it does nothing about the few parasites that milk the system and expect everyone else to pay their way for them. The vast majority of unemployed people are genuine. Nobody wants to make their life tougher ... its tough enough already. I have been unemployed fairly recently, and its no picnic. But to have no punative measures seems to open the whole system up to massive abuse.
    Hi Frosty. Were you on the dole when you were unemployed? Just asking because I’ve been on the dole a couple of times some years ago and it was a financial struggle and miserable, especially once when I was no longer a recent graduate. Sure there’d be some people who can eek out an existence on it but it’s really not appealing for people who are used to full-time pay or even good part-time pay. You can afford to eat and pay low rent. So it’s not a realistic scam which most people could realistically take up, would want to take up, not with that amount of money.

    [Having said that, I did co-write a cheer-up song at the time about how watching Days was much more fun (than going out and getting a job)… ]

    The Australian myth of the dole bludger really got out of control a few decades ago... Over the years there've been all sorts of fanciful ideas in the media tacitly promoted by government about what people were getting up to, able to get up to. World travel, fancy holidays, all sorts of deliciously wonderful things... all designed to make the wage slaves simmer with resentment. Never mind all the white collar crime going on… which involves far more audacious deceit and far more money.

  13. #13
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty
    So in the scenario I outlined above, you would not stop paying me the dole, you would let me continue as long as I wanted. If everyone who was unemployed decided to do that (unlikely I admit), you wouldn't stop them?
    I don't accept Kantian-style "if everyone did X" type arguments on anything unless there is an actual risk of everyone doing X.

    What about if a substantial chunk of the working population decided that was a decent scam and decided to stop working and go on the dole instead?
    Did this happen when we previously had more limited conditions on the dole? Not to any great degree that I recall.

    The problem I see with the policy proposed is that it does nothing about the few parasites that milk the system and expect everyone else to pay their way for them.
    Nothing significant can be done about these. The current government's success in cutting the unemployment rate has little to do with its harshness in administering the dole and far more to do with the casualisation of the workplace, which means that many people who are either on the dole or just avoiding it avoid the technical definition of "unemployed".
    Those who are determined to bludge for a living will always find ways to do it.

    But to have no punative measures seems to open the whole system up to massive abuse.
    I'm not proposing no punitive measures (though again, I would prefer that to what we have now). I'm just proposing a massive cutback in the range of hoops a person can be penalised for failing to jump through - on the grounds that these can punish people who don't deserve to be punished.

    As for how I propose to pay for any small increase in welfare spending, if you have a strong safety net you can afford to liberalise many other areas in which business is currently restricted.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Watto
    Were you on the dole when you were unemployed? Just asking because I’ve been on the dole a couple of times some years ago and it was a financial struggle and miserable, especially once when I was no longer a recent graduate. Sure there’d be some people who can eek out an existence on it but it’s really not appealing for people who are used to full-time pay or even good part-time pay. You can afford to eat and pay low rent. So it’s not a realistic scam which most people could realistically take up, would want to take up, not with that amount of money.
    Yes, I was ... for about 6 months. With a wife and 2 young children to provide for, it wasn't much fun. I have no problem with people who are [EDIT: genuinely] unemployed. I stood in the queues at Centrelink just like everyone else.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  15. #15
    CC International Master Watto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty
    Yes, I was ... for about 6 months. With a wife and 2 young children to provide for, it wasn't much fun. I have no problem with people who are [EDIT: genuinely] unemployed. I stood in the queues at Centrelink just like everyone else.
    Oh, fair enough. I was just trying to clarify whether you knew how much money was involved. Would be pretty tough with a family to support...

    Glad you're employed again.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What's your profession?
    By Alan Shore in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-05-2008, 12:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •