PDA

View Full Version : Unemployment benefits (sf. what's your profession?)



Davidflude
15-02-2006, 10:41 PM
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.

Thunderspirit
15-02-2006, 10:47 PM
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.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2006, 12:25 AM
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. :D

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. :cool:

Spiny Norman
16-02-2006, 06:01 AM
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?

firegoat7
16-02-2006, 11:41 AM
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

eclectic
16-02-2006, 12:01 PM
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.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2006, 12:07 PM
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.

eclectic
16-02-2006, 12:21 PM
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!!

Spiny Norman
16-02-2006, 12:34 PM
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.

firegoat7
16-02-2006, 12:44 PM
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?

firegoat7
16-02-2006, 12:55 PM
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

Watto
16-02-2006, 01:10 PM
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.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2006, 01:10 PM
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.

Spiny Norman
16-02-2006, 01:16 PM
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.

Watto
16-02-2006, 01:28 PM
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. :)

Duff McKagan
16-02-2006, 01:32 PM
I wonder what David Caldon would say about this thread? :)

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2006, 01:53 PM
I wonder what David Caldon would say about this thread? :)

I reckon that must be the best-remembered post in Australian chess bulletin board history. (And no, pleeeeaaaase don't anyone even think about reposting it.)

Spiny Norman
16-02-2006, 01:55 PM
Glad you're employed again. :)
So am I, that's for sure ... :)

Alan Shore
16-02-2006, 02:38 PM
I reckon that must be the best-remembered post in Australian chess bulletin board history. (And no, pleeeeaaaase don't anyone even think about reposting it.)

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=619

:D

Axiom
16-02-2006, 09:57 PM
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 onů which involves far more audacious deceit and far more money.[/QUOTE]


bullseye!............easy to cast ones cowardly head downwards to "kick" the "lower downs", more courage to tilt head upwards and grab the "higher ups" is it not?

ElevatorEscapee
16-02-2006, 10:21 PM
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 onů which involves far more audacious deceit and far more money.



bullseye!............easy to cast ones cowardly head downwards to "kick" the "lower downs", more courage to tilt head upwards and grab the "higher ups" is it not?

I was a "long term" unemployed person on Centrelink benefits for several years (before getting a job that led to a step up to my current position)...

All I can say is that at times I was extremely frustrated when, in one fortnight, I had to spend far more time and energy proving that I had been looking for work, than I had actually been able to spend looking for work!

I ask you, do you think that that was a genuine use of my time at your (the taxpayer's) expense?

Please bear in mind that half the "jobs" listed on the Centrelink database were in the military!

Why not just bring back conscription and have done with it! :rolleyes:

Alan Shore
16-02-2006, 11:12 PM
Centrelink are the biggest bunch of idiots I've ever seen.

More proof to the pudding:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18163307-2,00.html

Rhubarb
17-02-2006, 12:40 AM
Centrelink are the biggest bunch of idiots I've ever seen.

More proof to the pudding:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18163307-2,00.html

First of all, it is unbelievable sensationalism on the part of the editors reponsible for the "Report details 1.5 million dead customers" headline, since in the fourth paragraph it says: "A small number of these customers [sic] were still receiving welfare payments, but most were not."

That could mean less than 1% were still receiving payment, for all the lack of facts presented in the story is concerned. And who knows what the facts are? The reporter and/or editor clearly wasn't interested. And why not? Because that wouldn't really pique the ire of the right-wing cretins who read News Limited's news.com.au so they can justify in their own tiny minds f***ing over the worker and raping the planet at the same time.

Never mind that the true story was about run-of-the-mill house-keeping by Centrelink and is a total non-story.

Secondly, this Government isn't the slightest bit interested in genuine full employment. As many people have already stated, they are more interested in turning low-level employed people against unemployed people (and here they throw in a dash of terrorism hysteria) so that in the meantime they can play out their insane agenda (global control by raping the planet, in case you came in late).

And people still vote for Howard and Bush. Unbe-f***ing-lievable.

P.S. Dion, there's no point blaming Centrelink public servants, who have no choice in the matter if they want to keep their job.

Alan Shore
17-02-2006, 01:01 AM
P.S. Dion, there's no point blaming Centrelink public servants, who have no choice in the matter if they want to keep their job.

I don't. They've told me 'this is legislation, we're powerless to act against it' many times. It's the 'organisation', the government-fuelled bullshit I am against.

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2014, 03:33 PM
*bump*

A version of the lefty rant outlined in #3 (with a new right twist of course) is now up on my website in response to some of Kevin Andrews' nonsense this week.

http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/andrews-phantom-welfare-spending-crisis.html

Advance Summary

1. An "unsustainable" level of welfare spending has been asserted by Human Services Minister, Kevin Andrews, in flagging a review of the system.

2. However, the number of people on welfare has not increased over the past decade when it is measured on a per capita basis rather than in raw-number terms.

3. Furthermore, when the age pension is excluded the proportion of people receiving welfare payments was consistently lower under Labor than in most of the second half of the Howard Coalition government.

4. Recent increases in the number of people receiving Newstart are explained largely by classification changes through the forcing of parents off parenting benefits, and increased unemployment.

5. While it would be more productive to investigate other areas of the welfare system, unemployment and disability benefits are a more politically convenient target.

6. Any investigation of whether "perverse incentives" are encouraging potential jobseekers to apply for disability support instead should consider whether the conditions under which Newstart allowance is made available, rather than just the disparity in payment amounts, might contribute to the problem (if it even exists.)

Desmond
24-01-2014, 08:32 PM
If I am made redundant and receive a payment worth ~2 months pay, and Centrelink tells me to come back and apply in 2 months because I have too much cash to be eligible for a payment, do I become a +1 to the unemployment figures now or in 2 months' time?

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2014, 09:06 PM
If I am made redundant and receive a payment worth ~2 months pay, and Centrelink tells me to come back and apply in 2 months because I have too much cash to be eligible for a payment, do I become a +1 to the unemployment figures now or in 2 months' time?

For official unemployment stats (which are based on surveys) now, if you are looking for work at the time. For figures on the number of recipients of a given Centrelink payment, as far as I can tell from reading the fine print of the surveys, it's from the commencement of being paid.

Desmond
24-01-2014, 09:20 PM
For official unemployment stats (which are based on surveys) now, if you are looking for work at the time. For figures on the number of recipients of a given Centrelink payment, as far as I can tell from reading the fine print of the surveys, it's from the commencement of being paid.OK thanks, I had thought that the latter informed the former.

Garvinator
24-01-2014, 10:18 PM
If I am made redundant and receive a payment worth ~2 months pay, and Centrelink tells me to come back and apply in 2 months because I have too much cash to be eligible for a payment, do I become a +1 to the unemployment figures now or in 2 months' time?
It would be in two months time because your status might change in that two months meaning you do not require the unemployment assistance. Also, if whilst receiving unemployment assistance, a person is working one hour a week, they are not included in the official unemployment statistics. What a rort.

I do wonder what the true unemployment number of Australia is- which in my opinion is- all those who are receiving unemployment assistance from Centrelink. This means that Centrelink has determined that they are not sufficiently and securely employed for a long enough period of time to not be on unemployment assistance.

I think that %, compared to the 6 per cent figure we hear at the moment, would frighten most people. It is what I call, the true unemployment number.

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2014, 10:41 PM
OK thanks, I had thought that the latter informed the former.

So did I until not long ago. One thing that is little understood about the official unemployment rate is that it is only an estimate, with a certain +/- on that because of sample error. So for instance when the rate is given as 5.8%, that is with a margin of error of about 0.3%. The press can go ballistic over a 0.2-point increase but it's not statistically significant. Very similar to the same problem with polling.


Also, if whilst receiving unemployment assistance, a person is working one hour a week, they are not included in the official unemployment statistics. What a rort.

Roy Morgan tracks what it calls the Real Unemployment Rate: http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/unemployment/estimates-detailed They discuss some of the methods differences here: http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/unemployment/unemployment-methodology but don't mention the rort (and yes it is a rort).

Their current estimate is 11.2%, and is the highest it has been in the time from 2001 onwards.

I'm not sure how I'd define it but I would add that there are people who are unemployed and looking for work or at least wishing to work who are not on Centrelink at any given time because they prefer living off their savings when not working to dealing with Centrelink.

I also think there are people who can be classed as unemployed when not actively seeking work, if they would like to work and would accept work if it was offered.

Patrick Byrom
25-01-2014, 04:52 PM
Roy Morgan tracks what it calls the Real Unemployment Rate: http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/unemployment/estimates-detailed They discuss some of the methods differences here: http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/unemployment/unemployment-methodology but don't mention the rort (and yes it is a rort).
The US has a range of indicators (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm): U1-U6, with U6 being closest to the 'Real Unemployment Rate'. Australia doesn't seem to have anything similar.

pappubahry
29-01-2014, 12:10 PM
The US has a range of indicators (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm): U1-U6, with U6 being closest to the 'Real Unemployment Rate'. Australia doesn't seem to have anything similar.
The ABS publishes unemployment figures every month and underemployment figures every quarter. You can see the time series in Table 22 of their monthly releases, e.g., here (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6202.0Dec%202013?OpenDocument). Adding the underemployment rate to the unemployment rate gives something similar to the American U-6, though I'm not across all the details.

The two measures track each other fairly closely, so for questions like "is a heating labour market putting pressure on inflation?", it doesn't much matter which measure you use. The gap between the two series increased substantially during the recession of the early 1990's and has remained pretty steady since then, with another (smaller) increase during the GFC.

2493

I would not describe the ABS's figures as a rort; they are following standard international statistical practice. So we can compare Australia's unemployment rate to unemployment rates of other countries following the same standards. People are free to look at the various other measures published by the ABS for more detailed summaries of the labour market; Matt Cowgill has a good discussion of the issues here (http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/has-the-unemployment-rate-been-manipulated/).

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2014, 10:55 PM
The Howard government looks benign now on this subject compared to the further ramp-ups in the latest budget. Especially the proposal to make under-30s wait six months to access any level of benefits at all. (Apparently this reduces for time in the workforce previously at the rate of one month/year, but that's not much consolation for someone who has run out of education options and fails to find a job, nor does it much help those with a history of casual or intermittent work.) Is a person who is unemployed with no money supposed to live in homeless shelters and eat out at Salvos while actively looking for work for six months? And how are they going to find work while doing Donkey Work For The Dole for 25 hours/week and trying to get their life back together after that?

I've checked the primary source (http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-21.htm) to see if I'm just misunderstanding the proposal but apparently I'm not and that is really what it is. Ghastly American-style rubbish, and yet, hardly anyone cares.