This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Useless Labor Party

Jump to new

If people have been on the dole for more than about a year, there is something wrong. They should have to go and get some qualifications or skills that are required in their area. Either that or work for the dole.
 

While not in Australia, a reporter in the USA sent out roughly 600 Resumes for various jobs. From the description the reported had a number of boiler plate resumes that went from skilled to unskilled in the job and also from currently employed to unemployed up to 1 year.

What he found was in every case that once a skilled person had been unemployed for 6 months or more, unskilled people would get replies to come in for an interview if they were currently employed or only recently unemployed.

I would not be surprised to see a similar kind of discrimination in Australia.

Even the Government is forecasting unemployment to continue to rise for at least the next financial year, so under that scenario how is it the unemployeds' fault they are unable to get a job when the economy is growing slow slowly it's impossible for everyone to have a job?

Now lets have a look at your luxury statement.

The single rate with no children is 510.50 a fortnight.

You'll likely be renting so the maximum rate of rental assistance is $126.40 / fortnight if your weekly rent is over $280.53 a fortnight.

So lets take the best case scenarios where you're receiving $636.9 a fortnight.

Fortnightly costs:
Rent = $280.53 (minimum level to get the maximum rental assistance)
Food = $150 (roughly what I spend on fairly basic shopping for a single person)
Utilities = $35 (i've included basic internet / home phone / mobile access otherwise it does make job hunting difficult based on a 3 person share household)
Public Transport = $50

So we're down to $121 left over to fund a luxury lifestyle.

I'd also argue that to get $140 weekly rent would require sharing a bedroom with someone else unless you were living in a very undesirable location, which would probably mean the above public transport costs would be higher. There's probably other costs in life I've not covered. Puts you in a precarious position if you can't find a bulk billing doctor and need to pay $65 for a visit like I recently did, especially if you're up for some medication after the visit.

I grew up in a welfare family, I can assure you we did not live in luxury. Most of my clothes were hand me downs or Kmart Christmas gifts. We grew a lot of veggies, we mowed lawns, put roofing insulation during summer heatwaves, installed kilometres of fencing on farms and peoples properties, my mum cleaned peoples' houses, never went on holidays. A real treat was a monthly trip to the book exchange with my mum, or the council library to get books not available in the school library.

How about you direct some of your outrage to the corporate sector and the very wealthy who bilk the tax payers a lot more.
 
SirRumpole said:
If people have been on the dole for more than about a year, there is something wrong. They should have to go and get some qualifications or skills that are required in their area. Either that or work for the dole.
Click to expand...
Isn't this precisely what the government is proposing? i.e. get a job or only be eligible for the dole if you are in some sort of learning program or work for the dole. Sounds fair enough to me.

And if they have to share accommodation to make ends meet, then just do that and get on with putting in effort to get a decent job. Plenty of us shared accommodation when we were starting out. Helps to develop social skills and understanding of the need to co-operate with others.

Just a side note on some of the realities behind the continuing statements about people being unable to get a job. This is an anecdote from a friend whose grandson this week attended a group interview in the quest for an after school job at Coles. There were about 500 of mostly teenagers. They were divided into multiple groups, each group being given a task and told to choose a leader to best ensure that task would be fulfilled.

The employers watched and listened and eventually chose 100 people, repeated a similar exercise with them, and so on, down to ten people who next week will attend a personal interview. Happily for my friend her grandson is one of them.

What I found unbelievable is that more than half these kids turned up with either bare feet or thongs, shorts and tees. The grandson and one other kid were the only ones wearing ties.

Seems likely to me that many of such kids don't want a job at all, or they'd make more of an effort to present themselves properly. I guess by attending they can tick the box on the Centrelink form which says it's another job they have applied for.
 
The grandson and one other kid were the only ones wearing ties.
Click to expand...

Wearing ties is soooo yesterday. Like smoking cigars.



However, what you said was that 500 applied for ten people to attend a personal interview , of which how many will be chosen ?

That must give you a clue as to the extent of youth unemployment if there are 500 applicants for less than 10 jobs.

The employers seem to have the upper hand at the moment.
 

But you forgot to mention these young dole bludgers more than likely have 6 or 8 living in the one house.....$639.90 X 8 = $5119.20......They are not stupid......they have worked it out very well and I know exactly of this case happening in Townsville.

They live like rabbits.......in and out of one hole every night.
 

And that's Labor's fault because...??? I'm assuming from your argument that there was never any form of "dole bludging" when Howard was in office.

Could it be they're living like rabbits because that's the only way to survive when you're on an income basically below the poverty line? Are you saying you would have a life of luxury on the same level of income? I know I'd certainly find it hard to exist on that kind of money in Sydney, even renting an hour out of the city.

What are your solutions to the problem?
How would you stop your solutions from having negative consequences for the genuinely unemployed?
How do you propose to get everyone who wants a full time job into one?
 
SirRumpole said:
Wearing ties is soooo yesterday.
Click to expand...
Really? It wouldn't appear so, given that the two kids out of the ten chosen were the ones wearing ties.
Of course I'm not suggesting they were chosen just for that reason, but let's remember that the people manning checkouts etc in Coles and Woolworths are always neatly dressed and at times have included ties.
The point is not what you might think is fashionable or otherwise, but what the employer is looking for, which presumably includes a pride in one's appearance.
However, what you said was that 500 applied for ten people to attend a personal interview , of which how many will be chosen ?

That must give you a clue as to the extent of youth unemployment if there are 500 applicants for less than 10 jobs.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how many will be chosen. Given the turnover of staff I would imagine probably all ten.

You have conveniently ignored my suggestion that many of those 'applying' were doing so, unsuitably attired and probably with attitudes to match, simply to be able to tick the box on the Centrelink form enabling their continued receipt of the dole.

Sometimes, Rumpole, I wonder at your apparent determination to try to score less than valid points to support your political affiliation, rather than just accepting a simple anecdote at face value. It does put one off bothering to post.
 
Julia said:
Really? It wouldn't appear so, given that the two kids out of the ten chosen were the ones wearing ties.

It does put one off bothering to post
Click to expand...

As do people who ignore emoticons and apparently have no sense of humour.

You have conveniently ignored my suggestion that many of those 'applying' were doing so, unsuitably attired and probably with attitudes to match, simply to be able to tick the box on the Centrelink form enabling their continued receipt of the dole.
Click to expand...

You made a suggestion, the basis for which I don't know. Maybe some people apply to 'tick boxes' as you put it, but if their experience is that at a ratio of 500 applications for one job that their chances are very small, then that maybe a reason for their attire, if not a justification. Your words " unsuitably attired and probably with attitudes to match", is a biased assumption without proof on your part.

Sometimes, Rumpole, I wonder at your apparent determination to try to score less than valid points to support your political affiliation, rather than just accepting a simple anecdote at face value.
Click to expand...


Your anecdote is just that, anecdotal, from a friend via her grandson. You weren't there so you had to rely on the personal experience and biases of others. The quality of their observations is unknown.

You ignored the simple facts that there were 500 applicants for less than 10 jobs. If you exclude your "more than half" of "unsuitable applicants", let's say that leaves 200 "suitable applicants" for perhaps one job, and you still say there is no unemployment problem ?

And you accuse me of trying to score "less than valid points" ?

ROFL.



If it was an "after school" job, then one assumes most at least of the applicants were still at school and not going to Centrelink. So there is another bit of bias on your part.

Make all the anecdotes you like Julia, but they are no substitute for facts.
 
Julia said:
Sometimes, Rumpole, I wonder at your apparent determination to try to score less than valid points to support your political affiliation, rather than just accepting a simple anecdote at face value. It does put one off bothering to post.
Click to expand...

I refer you to my first post on this issue

If people have been on the dole for more than about a year, there is something wrong. They should have to go and get some qualifications or skills that are required in their area. Either that or work for the dole.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with some of the government's actions on the youth unemployment issue, except for the proposal to cut of their benefits for 6 months. However, they, and yourself, appear to be in denial mode that there actually is a problem with youth unemployment ; ie there are more applicants (many more from your anecdote) than there are jobs. If the government denies that fact, and tries to put all the blame on job seekers, then they deserve contempt.
 
but let's remember that the people manning checkouts etc in Coles and Woolworths are always neatly dressed and at times have included ties.
Click to expand...

All the checkout people I see are wearing a company uniform supplied by their employer, so the wearing of a tie at interview would seem irrelevant.
 
SirRumpole said:
All the checkout people I see are wearing a company uniform supplied by their employer, so the wearing of a tie at interview would seem irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Did you see Christopher Pyne on Insiders this morning ?

He had the gall to turn up to an interview WITHOUT A TIE !!!

What a terrible example to set our unemployed youth

 
Rumpole, I lack the interest and energy to match your determination to engage in squabbling.

I will just say that - having lived in this town for 22 years, and having volunteered with young people in a mentoring and emergency relief capacity for most of that time - I have a pretty good understanding of local conditions and attitudes.

I'll in future avoid posting any small anecdote which I'd thought might be of interest to some in terms of how the big employers go about selecting their staff.
 
Rumpole, I lack the interest and energy to match your determination to engage in squabbling.
Click to expand...

Not squabbling, DISCUSSION. I thought that's what this forum was for.



Julia said:
I'll in future avoid posting any small anecdote which I'd thought might be of interest to some in terms of how the big employers go about selecting their staff.
Click to expand...

You anecdote was certainly interesting, and thank you for it, but like most such anecdotes it told only half the story and the way it was told appealed to a certain group whose prejudices are already ingrained. I believe the common term for such stories is "dog whistling".

Anyway, cheers, and keep the anecdotal evidence rolling in.

 
Martin Parkinson from Treasury has warned the useless Green/Labor left wing socialists the damage they are doing to the economy of this country and they still ignore that warning in the National interest.....The National interest Labor always lectured us about in 2007/2013 ....Labor could not care less about the National interest......they only care about political point scoring....They should be ashamed of themselves.


Block on savings will ‘damage our future’, says Martin Parkinson

The Australian
July 01, 2014 12:00AM

Print
Save for later

18
David Uren
Economics Editor
Canberra
https://plus.google.com/111790188086700309806

TREASURY chief Martin Parkinson has warned that opposition to the savings measures in the budget risks inflicting long-term damage to Australia’s economic future.

Dr Parkinson also declares that Australia’s budget position is not sustainable without major reform and the government’s budget strategy achieves this.

Although the strategy would pave the way for much-needed reform of the tax system, however he says it is unrealistic to suggest the budget could be brought back to balance by raising taxes.

In a speech to a joint ANU-Australian Financial Review conference in Canberra yesterday, Dr Parkinson said the focus of budget repair had to be on the spending side.

“It is one thing to argue that reform proposals should be designed with fairness in mind,” he said. “But it is quite another to invoke vague notions of fairness to oppose all reform. Using such an argument to defend an unsustainable status quo means consigning Australia to a deteriorating future.”

Dr Parkinson said the government’s budget did tackle the problems that Australia faced, with the prospect of large deficits continuing into the indefinite* *future. “The policy decisions taken by the government in this budget are projected to restore the budget to a position that is structurally sustainable over the medium term,” he said.

Dr Parkinson said that if budget repair were to focus on spending, it had to be recognised that Australia’s welfare system was highly targeted.

“Policy changes will likely have a larger impact on those who receive the most payments.”

He said those who argued that the government should have focused more on raising taxes needed to recognise the structural pressures confronting the tax system. In 2015-16, the average full-time employee will already be pulled into the second highest tax bracket, paying 39 cents in tax for each additional dollar they earn. By 2023-24, the average full-time tax rate would rise from 23 per cent to 28 per cent in the absence of personal income tax cuts.

Continued increases in income taxes would hit lower and middle-income earners hardest, and have adverse impacts on labour force participation while “sharpening incentives for tax minimisation by the highest income earners.”

It has been shown that countries with less reliance on personal income tax and greater use of indirect taxes supported better economic growth and higher living standards.

Dr Parkinson said the corporate tax base was being eroded by globalisation and the changing nature of international commerce. Despite the introduction of the GST in 2000, Australia’s dependence on direct taxes was as great today as it was in 1950 and was high relative to other OECD countries.

“Without conscious change, the economic cost of raising tax from our current tax mix will increase,” he said.

Dr Parkinson said the future of tax reform rested with the community. However the government’s tax and federation white papers presented a “once in a generation opportunity for reform”.
Originally published as Savings block will ‘damage future’

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...martin-parkinson/story-e6frg926-1226972989958
 
The Greens themselves have their own inconsistencies to deal with.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...palmer-has-greens-on-edge-20140630-3b4c4.html
 
Bill Shorten wants to maintain a Labor policy from the Gillard government.

Class warfare.


He's right about the main point of the article, but the Gillard government would have realised that at the time it announced the carbon tax. Then, as we all remember, it was about securing office with the support of the Greens and independents.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...imate-action-bill-shorten-20140701-3b605.html
 
If the Green/Labor socialist leg wing party codons the full paid parental leave scheme for public servants, why isn't OK for those workers employed by private enterprise?
I personally do not agree with either scheme but the hypocrisy of the Labor is typical.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...eft-holding-baby/story-fnbkvnk7-1226972824367

NOW I am no fan of Tony Abbott’s proposed paid parental leave scheme. But, frankly, the stench of hypocrisy coming from Labor, the trade unions and left-wing commentators is close to overpowering.

Take the stance of Labor parliamentarians, led by former trade unionist, Bill Shorten. Perhaps his team needs reminding that it was Labor’s Gough Whitlam who introduced the Maternity Leave Act 1973, which provides for a minimum of 12 weeks parental leave for commonwealth public servants at full replacement wages, plus superannuation.

And can I remind trade union leaders that the ACTU’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into paid parental leave recommended a guaranteed income of 14 weeks at ordinary time earnings, plus superannuation, with the costs split between government and employers.

Let’s face it: if a full replacement wage parental leave scheme of 26 weeks duration were proposed by Labor, the pages of The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian would be filled with gushy opinion pieces praising the foresight, fairness and economic sense of the proposal.

And if that is not bad enough, the naysayers of Abbott’s PPL scheme — a scheme that has been taken to two elections — conveniently ignore the extremely generous arrangements that apply to workers in the public sector, the costs of which are borne by taxpayers.

The features of these arrangements include:

• The scope for double dipping;

• Full wage replacement parental leave, including superannuation;

• The manipulation (nay, rorting) of the system to benefit public sector workers on paid parental leave.

Take the first issue, double dipping. Under the current arrangements, a public servant on parental leave can receive 14 weeks on full pay (the number of weeks varies between departments and can be taken as half pay for a longer period) as well as the government-provided payment of 18 weeks based on the minimum wage. As long as the public servant has a taxable income of less than $150,000 per year (and most will), this double dipping is completely permissible.

Adding in individuals’ ability to cash in unused leave entitlements, it is pretty clear that many public sector workers are on extremely good wickets when bub comes along — and all courtesy of the taxpayer.

As if that’s not bad enough, it gets worse. There are various wrinkles in arrangements that pertain to particular classes of public sector workers across the country. Take nurses employed in the NSW public sector as a case in point. They are entitled to 14 weeks’ parental leave on full pay, plus superannuation.

But here’s the kicker: if a nurse has a subsequent period of parental leave while on unpaid parental leave or has returned to work on reduced hours (and it is within 12 months from recommencing work), the next period of parental leave is paid at the full-time rate — plus superannuation. Wow, I think. Expect a lot of nurses’ children to be close in age.

Not surprisingly, these arrangements now apply to all health professionals working in the public system in NSW. Note also that these provisions are the result of union-led negotiations.

And take a look at the paid parental leave provisions in publicly funded universities. While there are some variations, a typical pattern is 24 weeks on full pay for workers with at least five years’ tenure (14 weeks for others) plus a return-to-work bonus of 12 weeks’ pay. Let’s not forget that many of these university workers will be entitled to the government’s paid parental leave scheme payments as well. It really is a fabulous deal for those who can get it.

And then there is the outright rorting of paid parental leave that takes place in the public service, the tab for which is picked up by the taxpayer. There are a number of variations, including workers returning to full-time duties for the two weeks prior to taking paid parental leave (and being paid at full-time replacement pay) and temporary appointments at a higher classification.

Without the pressure of a financial bottom line, supervisors often give into these contrivances in the (mistaken) belief that there is no harm generated by workers getting enhanced deals when baby arrives.

So where does this leave the debate? The truth is that the detractors of Abbott’s PPL are hiding behind a thin veil of two-faced duplicity in which extremely generous full wage replacement schemes for public sector workers are endorsed while simultaneously criticising the features of Abbott’s scheme.

When Labor shadow minister for disability reform, Jenny Macklin, writes that “the huge gap in support between high and low income women is fundamentally unfair; this is taxpayer’s money”, is she talking about the parental leave arrangements that apply in the public sector or to Abbott’s scheme? I think you know the answer. And surely the ACTU is somewhat embarrassed by the fact that support for a full wage replacement parental leave scheme has been its official policy since Adam was a boy?

What is the way forward? The obvious first move is to remove double dipping. Any public servants (or any other workers, for that matter) receiving paid parental leave from their employer should not be able to receive the government provided payment in addition. (There could be scope for some top-up if the worker received less in total than the current government scheme provides.)

Second, there needs to be a systematic review of the paid parental leave arrangements that apply in the public sector. Wrinkles such as workers being paid at full pay during subsequent leave periods even if they have not returned to work need to be eliminated. Third, the outright rorting of arrangements should be stamped out.

I am still not a fan of Abbott’s PPL. But when it comes to attacking those who defend the inequitable treatment of different workers taking parental leave, he does have a point.
Originally published as Taxpayers left holding baby
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...