Abbott’s dole plan can work, here’s how

Stuart says:

06:50pm | 25/04/10

One thing the public may not be aware of… most job advertisments for unskilled positions attract over 100 applications. In the case of the firm I work for, any applicant who has been unemployed for more than 6 months is automatically culled from any vacancy; but applicants on visa’s are OK. So Tony, how about something to make it attractive for employers to hire medium to long term unemployed youth? You never know, perhaps you will come up with a sensible and workable policy? I have a family member of 22 years of age who has been unemployed for 18 months. He applies for every single job he can, and he can’t get an interview! The role of Centrelink? To dish out money! Three courses have been cancelled in the last 6 months! To Real Dave….these people are not the refuse of society; they are human beings and society owes it to them to allow them to work!

Wirewolf says:

02:48pm | 23/04/10

That approach runs the risk of encouraging people who have been unemployed for a lengthy period to never get at job. There would reach a point where the costs of paying back the benefits would be greater than the benefits of paid employment, leading people to decide (logically) that it was better to stay unemployed than to gain employment and expose oneself to that liability.

acotrel says:

11:56am | 24/04/10

Sort of like HECS without the education? That sounds fair! This must be ‘National Bash a Young Person Week’?

JR says:

02:18pm | 23/04/10

As stated in the article, if it becomes policy it will more than likely have an exemption for people with families. Abbott is just testing the water, polling will show that the public will be against taking the dole off people with families, and it is not unreasonable to assume that Abbott will listen.It also is not about forcing people to move, but helping to facilitate that option. Some jobs at the mines require high training, but a lot don’t. And all are high paying.

John A Neve says:

02:24pm | 23/04/10

I Exist,
Says “I do not think it is reasonable to force people to move away from their family and friends” !!!

This in a country where most peole have moved many thousands of KM’s from their roots. Where in the 1930’s people walk the roads and highways looking for a job.  In a country where we have many ghost towns following the gold or whatever running out.

So tell me I Exist, do I move to the desert and tell CentrLink I am a peal diver?

Come on get real, if there are no jobs in your town, but jobs down the road you move, failing that, you are a bludger.

Mackellar says:

04:07pm | 23/04/10

That’s not right, John, not right at all. Everyone has a right to their home and roots. These people you speak of moving KM’s for work do it out of choice. Or even if not 100% willing to leave, they do so to achieve an ambition like university or a promotion. It’s choice.

If a person is a bludger simply because they don’t wish to leave their home, then fine, they are bludgers. The Government still needs to support them, and not on the condition they move away.

John A Neve says:

07:10am | 24/04/10

Mackella,

Why should the government “support” people who won’t work?  Note I said won’t work, not can’t work.

If there are jobs in the next town or state, then people need to move, the world does not owe any one a liveing, so yes they are bludgers.

marley says:

09:23am | 24/04/10

MacKellar - you say that if someone doesn’t wish to move away from home, yes, they’re a bludger, but the government still has to support them.

Well, the government actually doesn’t support anyone.- the only money the government has is the money it extracts from taxpayers.  So, it’s not some distant entity called government that supports these people, it’s you and me.  And I don’t see any particular reason why I should pay someone not to work when they’re perfectly capable of getting employment in the next town or state.

Paul2 says:

10:26am | 24/04/10

Mackellar, the Government is us, last I looked, and the money used to support them comes from us, or from loans that we are taxed to pay the interest on.  If the unemployed have to be inconvenienced a little as part of growing up and learning to take responsibility then so be it.  You can pay for the “bludgers” out of your tax dollars.  I don’t wish to.

Paul2 says:

10:26am | 24/04/10

Mackellar, the Government is us, last I looked, and the money used to support them comes from us, or from loans that we are taxed to pay the interest on.  If the unemployed have to be inconvenienced a little as part of growing up and learning to take responsibility then so be it.  You can pay for the “bludgers” out of your tax dollars.  I don’t wish to.

John A Neve says:

01:47pm | 24/04/10

Mackella,
Sorry, no one has the right to bludge of their neighbours. If there is no work in this area, you go where there is work. Society does not owe you Mackella.

“The government still needs to support them”, no it doesn’t, people like you are destroying this country, just try working, it’s not that bad.

Tim says:

03:07pm | 23/04/10

Have you son and his mates been applying for skilled job positions or jobs that require more qualifications than they possess?
Maybe they need to set their sights a little lower to get a foothold in the market.
I find that a lot of young people think they are going to be in management within two years of starting work.
Their expectations do not meet reality.

Brett L says:

03:57pm | 23/04/10

Tim, it’s nothing to do with management. It’s hands on dirty work they want.
They want to do a skilled job that’s highly paid. It doesn’t have to even be in their trade it can be another skilled job that the mine is willing to train them for. Who said anything about management??

Tim says:

04:37pm | 23/04/10

Sorry Brett,
the management thing wasn’t about your kid’s situation just something i have noticed in other areas.
Some young people don’t want to do the dirty stuff first.
But if your kid and his mates are applying for reasonable positions for which they are qualified and are willing to learn then I don’t think they will be unemployed for long.
If companies aren’t willing to put a little effort into training their own people then it will be the company that suffers in the long term.

Wombat says:

05:58pm | 23/04/10

Brett L

Nice one, Brett. It’s good to see that some people realise that this policy has nothing to do with job vacancies in the mining industry. It’s not about forcing lazy, unmotivated young people to work in highly paid mining jobs. It’s about using the existence of unfilled vacancies in minimum wage, futureless jobs in isolated areas to justify an attack on the unemployed.

That’s why Brendan gets through his article with only the briefest mention of mines. This policy was never really about job vacancies in the mining industry.

Whatever the job, if employers are not getting the right people then they must not be paying the right money. It’s basic capitalism. Tony is pretending that people will move thousands of kilometres to a small town or rural area where accommodation might be expensive (due to the mining boom) or even unavailable. Food and communication with family and friends are also likely to be expensive. And young people will do this for $15 an hour? It’s just not going to happen.

Good luck to your son and his mates. It’s hard enough for young people today without being wrongfully accused of laziness (even if only by implication) by senior politicians.

Brett L says:

08:57pm | 23/04/10

Tim, they are not even unemployed. They all already have jobs. They are good workers, have or nearly have their trade qualification. What I’m saying is this is just all BS. There is no shortage of young people willing to work. There maybe a skills shortage, but who teaches those skills?We are not born with mining skills. Some of these guys have even paid employment “mining” agents up to $500.00 to be listed on their database. So there is an industry that profit on the want to work in mines. It’s just another crock of rubbish. Why do people have to push such rubbish?

Margaret says:

03:46pm | 26/04/10

I agree with you Brett. If the mining companies used some of their massive profits to provide, at the very least, subsidised housing for their workforce and on the job training for specialised work they would probably fill all the positions they claim are unfilled. The areas in which these people work in the mines is isolated and the conditions basic. Lack of accommodation and overpriced accommodation do not make these jobs attractive to anyone but the keenest. The advantages to those who take up these jobs is a high income which can provide a basis for future success.

There used to be incentives for employers to take up long term unemployed people - I don’t know if they are still in existence. Perhaps they should be resurrected if not.  With most of pur manufacturing industries gone there must be people with some skills out there who would benefit from taking these jobs.

Lou says:

04:36pm | 27/04/10

Even thosse that have higher qualifications can’t get in. I know someone that has just completed their degree, yet is unable to get a job as they want 5 years experience?!?! It’s crazy.

acotrel says:

12:13am | 25/04/10

It’s about using the existence of unfilled vacancies in minimum wage, futureless jobs in isolated areas to justify an attack on the unemployed.

Would Tony Abbott do that just because it’s election time? Who will ‘Iron Man’ bash next, in his quest for something on which t o hang his hat?

John A Neve says:

07:58am | 25/04/10

Acotrel,

I don’t know where the vacancies are, or what the level of pay is. But if there are vacant positions, why shouldn’t those unemployed fill them?

My experience has been that if you are in employemnt, it is easier to find another (often better) position, than if you are unemployed.

Unemployment payments are, in my view, about helping out while you find other employement. They are not ment to be an alternative life style.

marley says:

08:54am | 25/04/10

acrotel - is it any better to leave people on minimum wage, futureless dole?  At least people who are working are learning some life skills and building up a resume - and low paid jobs can lead to better paid jobs in the future.  The dole leads nowhere.

Wombat says:

11:54am | 25/04/10

It would seem that acotrel was quoting me. Which is nice, but it doesn’t work quite so well when taken out of context.

John A Neve and marley, you could try listening to Paul Howes’ interview on 2UE (link given below in reply to john’s post). Howes says that the AWU just paid 900K for a basic brick veneer house in Karratha.

Minimum wage doesn’t look so good if you have to sleep on the streets between shifts or spend more than you earn on petrol to get to work.

But you blokes are welcome to take it up if you like.

John A Neve says:

04:56pm | 25/04/10

Wombat,
What has Karratha got to do with debate?  There are other locations that want staff. Open your eyes Wombat, look around or are you cycloptic?

Wombat says:

06:26pm | 25/04/10

John A Neve

JAN: “I don’t know where the vacancies are, or what the level of pay is. But if there are vacant positions, why shouldn’t those unemployed fill them?”

Wom: “Minimum wage doesn’t look so good… blah, blah… spend more than you earn…”

What has Karratha got to do with it? I was offering an example of where minimum wage would leave an individual unable to afford even the most basic standard of living.

By your own admission you don’t know where the vacancies are or what they pay. Maybe we should just throw the kids out into the desert and let the free market take care of them?

Even with my one good eye I can see that if employers aren’t getting the right people then they must not be paying the right money. Us cyclops call that capitalism.

acotrel says:

07:10pm | 25/04/10

Over the years there have been situations where public servants should have been sent to Canberra to work.  They’re always given the CHOICE.  How can you claim that it’s ethical to coerce an unemployed kid to move thousands of miles from home and family?

John A Neve says:

07:52am | 26/04/10

Wombat,
Firstly I never mentioned the “minimum wage” that is some thing you brought into the debate. Likewise, conditions in Karatha is another little some thing you threw in. It is probably the worst situation you could find!!

As to “capitalism”, it is the system the people chose to follow, but again I fail to see what it has to do with this debate.

The questions are simple, as a community do we want to carry those that won’t work?  Does society owe people a living? What is wrong with people going where the work is?  Lastly shouldn’t the government be getting the best value for our taxation dollar?

Acotrel,
There are many people in our community who are told where to go for their jobs. So what is wrong with an unemployed person being told to go where there is work?

Wombat says:

03:59pm | 26/04/10

John A Neve

JAN: “But if there are vacant positions, why shouldn’t those unemployed fill them?”
Once again, John, you asked the question and I answered it and gave you an example. Your dislike of my answer doesn’t make either Karratha or the minimum wage irrelevant to the question.

You choose to seek justification for ignoring those parts of my posts that you don’t like. I will continue to try to address all of your questions:

1. + 2. “As a community do we want to carry those that won’t work? Does society owe people a living?”
No and no. But this article and Tony’s policy are about withdrawing the safety net from a certain section of the community. That safety net was there when I was young and probably when you were young too. There are far better ways to address these issues, such as better education, more appropriate skills training and actually telling people where these supposed jobs are.

3. “What is wrong with people going where the work is?”
Absolutely nothing. So employers put an ad in the paper and as long as they are paying an adequate wage (as determined by the free market) they will get people applying for that job. If nobody applies then they must not be paying an adequate rate.

4. “Shouldn’t the govt be getting the best value for our taxation dollar?”
Of course it should. And govts most certainly should be involved in programs that are aimed at providing skills and employment opportunities for Australians. The govt’s role in this should be to assist in the efficient allocation of labour.
Saving some money by withdrawing social welfare from an entire group of Australians based on their age is a measure that basically assumes that these people don’t want to work or just don’t deserve the same fallback option that you and I had when we were young (whether we ever used it or not).
If the carrot was good enough then there would be no need for the stick. Tony’s first instinct is just to go straight for the stick

Capitalism is an economic system where the factors of production (such as labour) are traded on open markets. Right wingers are usually happy with this system until market forces drive the price of factors that the rich don’t control (such as labour) too high. Then they insist on govt intervention.

Of course labour (and other) markets in Australia are so far from being truly free that this whole argument can get very complicated. But I always find it interesting that the Liberal Party’s solutions rarely involve assisting the labour market to operate more freely and efficiently. Rather, the aim seems to be to score political points by stigmatising some of the poorest members of our society.

John, we need to let the free market work its magic through the price mechanism, instead of trying to jump into it with a big stick to whack the unemployed. If those employers need people then all they have to do is pay the market rate.

TracyS says:

03:50pm | 23/04/10

@ Wirewolf - Limiting benefits has nothing to do with dictating what people do with their lives. The person can still choose not to move - there will simply be a financial consequence for that choice.

Working people have to make this sort of choice too. When an opportunity arises at another location that has better pay, or better scope for advancement, or better training opportunities, or better whatever else may be of interest, do they move and take advantage of it or stay put and settle for the current work situation?

As a person who has worked in various parts of Australia and has packed up and moved across the continent for better training and opportunities, I can see nothing “Draconian” about it.

Crash says:

03:26pm | 23/04/10

True, he hasn’t said exactly that.  He’s said that he suggests cutting off everybody under thirty from the dole and hoping that will encourage them to move to somewhere they can get work on the mines. 
So they would have other options if they’re unemployed - go homeless or stay with their parents ad infinitum

Freddo says:

03:46pm | 23/04/10

Actually Crash,
The Liberals have said that they want to limit the time young people get the dole with exemptions for the vunerable. This plan wouldn’t apply to everyone.
They have also said that they will provide people with up to $4000 in allowances for anyone who would move to areas where workers are required. This is not necessarily about moving people into the mines but simply to areas where workers are required. This could be in any industry.
The only reason that the media are portraying it as sending people to the mines is because Abbott made his comments at a resource sector function.
The idea needs further work but with changes it could make a good policy.

Anna says:

06:26pm | 23/04/10

There is also the agriculture industry where they are screaming out for workers not only mines.

persephone says:

08:33am | 24/04/10

Anna

not round here they’re not.

The parts of the agriculture sector which is screaming out for workers wants them to work at below award rates and in appalling work conditions.

My sister in law - an incredibly fit, athletic woman - worked picking apples near Shepparton over her uni holidays one year. She was unable to earn more than the dole, despite her speed of apple picking improving dramatically over the weeks she worked there.

Agricultural industries like this rely on illegal immigration and people working in breech of their visa conditions because neither group is going to complain.

I heard a union organiser outline what happens at a conference once: young, non English speaking (for the most part) migrants, some legal, some not, are bussed up from Melbourne. They’re not told where they’re going. They are housed in tin sheds, no air con, no heating, no phone, no TV etc. They are worked from dawn to dusk for below minimum wages.

It’s all highly illegal but it’s cheap.

That’s the kind of labourers the ag sector want. They don’t want Australian born English speaking types who know their rights and won’t put up with being exploited.

Jane says:

09:47am | 25/04/10

Well persephone I would suspect if these positions weren’t filled with illegals then the agriculture sector wouldn’t be able to to pay under the award rate and in appalling working conditions as you mention. These positions would be filled by under 30’s on Government conditions and awards. It’s a good point persephone you have bought up, and gives more credence to Abbotts idea.

persephone says:

10:03am | 26/04/10

Ah, Jane - Workchoices by stealth, then?

If that’s the intention - to force young people to work for lower wages and in worse conditions than they are entitled to by law - could Abbott just come out and say this?

It would be a far more honest approach than his present ‘wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean” approach to policy development.

Judy Shepherd says:

10:16am | 26/04/10

Persephone shows the true ignorance of the non-experienced but self-rightous know-all. 

We have a current workforce of 23 - all but one of whom are working in Australia on working-holiday visas - all are totally legal and, provided they can do the job are making well in excess of minimum wage, over $200 per day for 6-8 hours.  The pay is so good in fact that we have to tell them to stop work.  And we are not alone in paying this well for totally unskilled labour that requires a medium level of fitness and a willingness to have a go.

Many of us also provide on-farm accommodation - free of charge in their own camping gear.  We have a constant stream of applicants - many referrals from previous staff, so we must be doing something right.

This provides, over about 4months, the ability to earn half of a fairly good income - gives the chance to learn new skills, develop resilliance and certainly gives each worker a sense of self worth and achievement. 

So where the hell are our young unemployed.  They just don’t apply - even sometimes those of them that live here in the comfort of their own homes with family support.

Yes we’ve had them here and we’ve given them a go - but when for doing absolutely nothing you can earn a handout from the government - why would you try and provide for yourself in a dirty, hot and sometimes hard job.  Its so much easier to just sit back and take a hand-out.

So Persephone, before you label us all as slave-driving, unethical slumlords - do some research and try to remedy your ignorance!!!

persephone says:

02:03pm | 26/04/10

Judy, if you read my comment it refers to specific cases.

Of course not all employers in the agriculture sector treat their workers poorly. But there are those that do, and in some areas it’s seen as good business practice.

So apologies - I wasn’t referring to you personally. I’m sure you’re a good and fair employer.

persephone says:

08:34am | 24/04/10

So your solution is??

Ashley says:

03:45pm | 26/04/10

I know of former dole bludgers who have ended up working in the employment industry. Five years ago these positions were a dime a dozen. No skills needed aside from basic customer service and ability to type 30 mins a minute. A former friend who sat around for 12 months refusing to take anything but office work got in. Whilst she was meant to be working hard at the Job Network she’d forward me up to 10 emails a day, racist, sexist, lowest common denominator rubbish. It was evident these emails were circulated around the office and sent on to family and friends. She was quite happy to breach people for doing things she previously had done.The employment industry is a scam. Too many lowly educated bogans brainwashed into thinking they are professionals endowed with some kind of specialist knowledge about labor markets.  Do a bit of research and you’ll see Job Services Australia offers very little assistance unless you are a refugee, have a disability, or are a former substance abuser.

Wombat says:

06:18pm | 23/04/10

john’s post is a far more balanced, thoughtful and informative analysis of the situation than the article by the ex Liberal Party staffer.

persephone says:

08:40am | 24/04/10

Add to that that you cannot - as this article insinuates - move somewhere where there is less work than there is in your home town and receive Centrelink payments (without a really really good excuse).

If you’re already receiving payments, you have to notify Centrelink if you relocate. If you are relocating to an area with less employment, Centrelink can simply cut you off payments all together.

If you move to an area with high unemployment and then apply for benefits, Centrelink will simply tell you to move back home.

A 90 minute drive in the country, on good roads, will take you 150 k from home. On tax office rates, that costs you something like $160 each day. You don’t have the option of public transport in most cases.

Dena says:

07:34pm | 24/04/10

uh, actually Abbott was speaking about sending them to mines, the comments were first made while talking to a room full of mining industry people

Wombat says:

11:38am | 25/04/10

Dena

john was referring to Tony’s comments when he was Employment Services minister in 2000. Bashing the unemployed is an old standby for Tony. He likes to use it when he can’t think of some other stupid thing to say.

And you might want to read the article. “The mines” get 1 brief mention. The Liberals are quietly backing away from Tony’s fantasy that highly paid mining jobs are going unfilled.

BTW, that 1 brief mention of mines (in this article) was made purely for the purpose of verballing a workers’ representative. Paul Howes didn’t say what Brendan claims he said:

http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/should-we-cut-the-dole-for-under-30s/20100421-ss9x.html

Paul Howes: “It is not the lack of ability,it is the lack of skills…”

That’s pretty much the opposite of what Brendan claims that Howes said. Did Brendan Darcy actually get anything right in this article?

Brett L says:

07:25am | 24/04/10

Yes I agree with you Tigga. How hypocritical to cry poor for skilled workers when you are not prepared to make any investment at all. There are literally thousands and thousands of men and women who would jump at the chance to be professionally trained to work on mines. But instead profiteers are charging them for that training and it never amounts to anything. If the mines and government were serious they would train people, provide domestic infrastructure in these towns: Like schools, hospitals, affordable housing, shopping centres. It could also be the answer the overcrowding in cities. The answers are right there. But the politicians have their heads stuck up their ar$e, and until some pollie comes along with a vision and is not frequented by self interest groups we will forever read these BS stories.

BobM says:

08:01am | 24/04/10

The trouble is, Tigga, that we don’t have aforward thinking government at the moment.  All their policies are knee-jerk reactions to public sentiment and they do anything that will make them look good and look like they are actually doing something.  And from their past record, anything that they do manage to do (with their usual rushed planning and lack of oversight) will cost us, the taxpayer, $millions to fix once it goes pearshaped.

Paul2 says:

10:32am | 24/04/10

Why not try a career in mining Seano?  Might have to move house but them’s the breaks if you want to get ahead.

Ben81 says:

10:57am | 24/04/10

Nah, “proponents” would be a more suitable word.  “Apologist” usually implies there’s a dodgy reason to have to justify or defend something. Most of the defence here is in response to people making assumptions about policy that doesn’t exist yet and putting words in Abbott’s mouth.

By the way, if I had a dollar for every time I saw someone come in and lazily brush everyone off by saying “good to see X out in force today” and bugger all else i’d have, well about $200.

Seano says:

08:43am | 25/04/10

@Paul2: What are you on about? Oh I see anyone who disagrees with a crazy right wing idea, or rejects yet another piece of Abbott demogoguery has to be some sort of bludger or communist or something. I’ve seen your type before, I’ll mark your comments as not to be bothered with.

@Ben81: Nah… I meant appologist. I like the way you talk about those putting words in Abbotts mouth. Particularly when almost the entire defence is trying to justify Abbotts dumb idea in the first place by putting words in his mouth or should I say ideas in his brain.

By the way if I had a dollar for every time I saw a right winger come up with the “you’re a bigger one defence” and bugger all else I’d have, well a lot more than $200 bucks.

persephone says:

12:51pm | 25/04/10

Doesn’t National Service involve a medical too?

And you can leave school at 15; you just aren’t guaranteed Centrelink benefits.  There is no compulsion to stay at school until 18.

If you’re suggesting that kids shouldn’t have to stay at school until 18 and that, at 18 they should do National Service, what do they do between leaving school and turning 18?

Ben81 says:

02:45am | 25/04/10

You hear that, people?  Brett L put out a challenge for employers to give some guys he knows a job because of a ranting post on the internet, and they didn’t. Somehow this proves his point in his bizarrro world or something,  May I suggest you’re just a bit paranoid, friendo.

persephone says:

10:11am | 26/04/10

Oh goody. So someone who decides that they need to go to university goes back to school at 19, completes 3 years of secondary college, goes to university at 23, completes their degree (if they’re doing the minimum) at 27 and then starts earning money.

At that age, they’re probably already married and wanting kids but (with a HECs debt to pay as well) are several years behind their unskilled counterparts financially.

If you want to dumb down this nation, that’s the way to go.

Not sure why there is this obsession with kids doing some form of national service - most kids I know are great, sensible and responsible.

Of course there are a few bad apples, and more than we’d like who - for reasons they often can’t control - are unemployed (in financial crises, the young usually suffer the most). But does that mean that the vast majority of our young people should be made to do national service?

If you want to promote a scheme like this, focus on the young people who might benefit from it, rather than conscripting all of them and (in many cases) simply denying them the chance to get on with the career they want to do.

persephone says:

02:11pm | 26/04/10

Wombat

I regularly read that site, just for the unintended humour (and highly recommend it).

Interesting how they shift the goalposts, too - the site says that any idea which receives 100 supporters will receive a response from the Shadow Parliamentary secretary.

The suggestion that the Liberals legalise gay marriage hit the 100 very quickly - and the requirement was amended to 500 supporters.

Wombat says:

04:39pm | 26/04/10

Persephone

It might be unfair to impose the concept of stationary goalposts on the uninhibited free-thinkers that inhabit the Liberal Party.

Interesting that you are a regular at that site, especially since the link that I provided puts you on a section of the site where “ordinary Australians” are invited to help formulate Liberal Party policy.

Hopefully you are not putting bizarre policy ideas into Tony’s head just so that you can ridicule them later. Because that wouldn’t be fair to Tony. And unfairness is best saved for young, poor, unemployed people.

persephone says:

05:53pm | 26/04/10

Wombat

would I be so low and devious? Besides, putting up fake policy ideas seems a bit superflous, given the general qualify of the ‘real’ ones.

I don’t know if I’m ordinary or not, but (during Tony’s recent ‘listening tour’) I received an invitation to meet with him, thus confirming that I am a ‘normal Australian’.

Wombat says:

09:16pm | 26/04/10

Persephone

My sympathies on the invitation. I can only suggest that, were you to accept, you might find huge quantities of booze and a pair of earplugs to be of assistance.

On that comedy website they are proudly showing off Tony’s “tweets”. I’m computer stupid so I can only see the front one, but that’s enough:

“We have a Prime Minister who not only can’t take tough decisions…”

Who is Kev supposed to take them from? Isn’t Tony supposed to be educated? Apparently he’s only semi-literate.

You might want to also take an interpreter to that meeting.

John A Neve says:

12:58pm | 26/04/10

Persephone,

I’ll modify the question; should you get unemploymet benefits, if you have never been employed?
Another question; for how long should you be able to draw unemployment benefits?

persephone says:

06:04pm | 26/04/10

John A Neve

well, it’s better than a life of crime, prostitution, drug dealing, etc., bludging off one’s parents, taking employment at rip off wages, being driven to suicide, and so on.

As for the second question, most unemployed people are put on increasingly harsh conditions the longer they are unemployed, offered training and assistance, so the few people that are permanently unemployed are very few.

Again, what do you want to happen to them?

Of course it’s not ideal to have young people on unemployment benefits for extended periods of time, but it’s a bit like democracy - the alternatives are generally worse.

John A Neve says:

06:12am | 27/04/10

Persphone,
Says “the alternatives are generally worse”.
The state our democracy is in, I think that is debatable.

Casey says:

11:28am | 20/08/10

I propose that employers should be flexible. They expect job seekers and people already employed to be flexible. How about businesses for a change. Oh I forgot that is what casual work is all about!.

Casey says:

10:23am | 20/08/10

Yes and I’m sure your one these people who own a small business.Earn around $35,000 a year or more and are driving around in a toorak tractor and are somehow able to claim for a health care card. Because your accountant is able to find the loopholes and work the books.