Politics Centrelink

Remove this Banner Ad

SaintsSeptember said:
Sure , people who work all week should earn the same money as people who don't . Its only fair right?
Click to expand...

This isn't about how much employed people make (which is an entirely different issue), it's about how much unemployed people don't make and should make to be able to survive and thrive. The welfare system as it currently stands needs to be recalibrated to be a 'hand up', not a 'hand out'
 
killtaker1993 said:
This isn't about how much employed people make (which is an entirely different issue), it's about how much unemployed people don't make and should make to be able to survive and thrive. The welfare system as it currently stands needs to be recalibrated to be a 'hand up', not a 'hand out'
Click to expand...

It is relevant as you don’t want to have people finding it easier to sit at home doing nothing because their welfare payments are so good.

What could be a good idea is an increase in payments, maybe to the Covid supplement level, but every year the payment drops.

So someone loses their job and they go onto 1200 a fortnight to keep them going, but if they haven’t got a job after 12 months their payment level drops until after about 3-4 years it’s back to current levels.

Gives people some better assistance if they need it but doesn’t support them long term.
 
Hey guys, guess what?

After years of unemployment (I'm over 55) and many hundreds of rejected/ignored job applications I was offered - and accepted - a casual job through a labour hire company a couple of months ago. It's FINALLY getting me off the dole!

And you know what? After a week of 6am starts and either being asked to go home at 10am on slack days, or working until 4:30 on busy days, I am averaging just over twice the dole (less 10% cut for the LHC, and probably a tax bill in July).

That was until testing positive to covid last Monday, and having to take the rest of the week off and spend it and all Easter in quarantine. No sick leave. And how did I catch it? Because any campaigner with a cold or a cough will still turn up to work and lie about the results of a RAT test because they can't afford to lose hours.

227b4f98400224522669591599401527.png
(Source: Grattan Institute, Orange Book 2022, page 35.)

I'm so glad you campaigners are so sympathetic to the needs of those unlucky enough to be in the wrong demographic to walk into meaningful, properly compensated employment. Have a search of my posts in this thread to try to learn a little about attempting to survive on the jobseeker pittance, and how the corona supplement actually injected a little humanity into the work hunting process.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Over The Post said:
Hey guys, guess what?

After years of unemployment (I'm over 55) and many hundreds of rejected/ignored job applications I was offered - and accepted - a casual job through a labour hire company a couple of months ago. It's FINALLY getting me off the dole!

And you know what? After a week of 6am starts and either being asked to go home at 10am on slack days, or working until 4:30 on busy days, I am averaging just over twice the dole (less 10% cut for the LHC, and probably a tax bill in July).

That was until testing positive to covid last Monday, and having to take the rest of the week off and spend it and all Easter in quarantine. No sick leave. And how did I catch it? Because any campaigner with a cold or a cough will still turn up to work and lie about the results of a RAT test because they can't afford to lose hours.

View attachment 1376436
(Source: Grattan Institute, Orange Book 2022, page 35.)

I'm so glad you campaigners are so sympathetic to the needs of those unlucky enough to be in the wrong demographic to walk into meaningful, properly compensated employment. Have a search of my posts in this thread to try to learn a little about attempting to survive on the jobseeker pittance, and how the corona supplement actually injected a little humanity into the work hunting process.
Click to expand...
Australia is a primitive, bogan, dog eat dog country I'm afraid, you're wasting your breath. Thank John Howard who stuffed us for the next 100 years.
 
Over The Post said:
Hey guys, guess what?

After years of unemployment (I'm over 55) and many hundreds of rejected/ignored job applications I was offered - and accepted - a casual job through a labour hire company a couple of months ago. It's FINALLY getting me off the dole!

And you know what? After a week of 6am starts and either being asked to go home at 10am on slack days, or working until 4:30 on busy days, I am averaging just over twice the dole (less 10% cut for the LHC, and probably a tax bill in July).

That was until testing positive to covid last Monday, and having to take the rest of the week off and spend it and all Easter in quarantine. No sick leave. And how did I catch it? Because any campaigner with a cold or a cough will still turn up to work and lie about the results of a RAT test because they can't afford to lose hours.

View attachment 1376436
(Source: Grattan Institute, Orange Book 2022, page 35.)

I'm so glad you campaigners are so sympathetic to the needs of those unlucky enough to be in the wrong demographic to walk into meaningful, properly compensated employment. Have a search of my posts in this thread to try to learn a little about attempting to survive on the jobseeker pittance, and how the corona supplement actually injected a little humanity into the work hunting process.
Click to expand...
Isn't that kind of the point though? You go through all that s**t to get twice the dole, how can we then double the dole?
 
eddiesmith said:
It is relevant as you don’t want to have people finding it easier to sit at home doing nothing because their welfare payments are so good.

What could be a good idea is an increase in payments, maybe to the Covid supplement level, but every year the payment drops.

So someone loses their job and they go onto 1200 a fortnight to keep them going, but if they haven’t got a job after 12 months their payment level drops until after about 3-4 years it’s back to current levels.

Gives people some better assistance if they need it but doesn’t support them long term.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with long term support?
 
Father Jack said:
What's wrong with long term support?
Click to expand...


Because long term = obviously bludging and doesn't want to work

Nothing about every year = another year older and another year less attractive to an employer
Nothing about every year = another year since you've held a job so you must be unemployable
Nothing about every year = another year living in poverty with your interview clothes / work clothes more obviously dated and worn
Nothing about every year = another year of ever-decreasing self esteem, self worth, self belief, motivation and dignity

I'm not going to go too postal, because how a lot of people in this thread think is how I used to think, too. Until my circumstances changed overnight and my life went into the toilet. Now I've been there, done that, been on the receiving end for years (YEARS!) and its changed my entire outlook.

Maybe 1 in 20 or 30 are dole bludgers, or druggies, or work for cash and claim the dole too. So ******* what? Is it worth constantly degrading and victimising and humiliating the other 19 or 29 and forcing them into a life of genuine poverty and hopelessness?

My first hand knowledge says no, no it isn't. The corona supplement was the one brief interlude where someone long term unemployed could actually feel human and worthwhile and motivated.

Nevermind that it was 100% a pure political ploy to insulate the newly corona-unemployed voters from the horror of having to try to exist on just the dole. All the screams and angst about having to survive on just $1100 a fortnight? Cry me a ******* river.

Nevermind that it was going to be taken away as soon as it was politically expedient to do so, and was.

And for every pic on Murdoch's papers or TV news that showed smoking unshaven fat bludgers carrying a big screen out of JB due to their sudden windfall of unearned income, there were probably 8 or 10 long term unemployed like me who went to the ATM every few weeks and took $1000 out and salted the cash away, to maintain some kind of normal life when the libs turned off the tap. But we're not the ones brought to Joe Taxpayer's attention on A Current Affair.

I guess I shouldn't be annoyed at people if all they have ever heard is a litany of RWNJ propaganda from the politicians and media and simply don't know any better and aren't curious enough to find out more. But s**t it gets tiresome after a while.
 
eddiesmith said:
They still get long term support, but not at a level that someone would choose it over finding a job.

Anyone unable to work would be covered under different payments.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with the payment not being above what would stop people from working, but I reckon that is a higher number than you think.
 
There is a problem right through the work system.
Once upon a time a worker going to work and doing a good job, and displaying devotion and responsibility could often expect promotion.
Particularly in the small businesses that have been encouraged in Australia, there isn't the opportunity.
Places like the hospitality industry or retail? You might get promoted to store manager, but head office is unlikely.

If people don't perceive much difference in being unemployed or working for slightly more what will the average effect be?
 
Bomberboyokay said:
Liberal Governments actively damage Centrelink/Human Services for ideological reasons. Labor Governments don't try too hard to fix it as they think it a vote loser.
Click to expand...
Or it’s just like the rest of the government services. A dated system filled with a bunch of virtue singling self entitled over payed people who shouldn’t be in a management position?
 
elon31 said:
Or it’s just like the rest of the government services. A dated system filled with a bunch of virtue singling self entitled over payed people who shouldn’t be in a management position?
Click to expand...

What's virtue singling?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

elon31 said:
Or it’s just like the rest of the government services. A dated system filled with a bunch of virtue singling self entitled over payed people who shouldn’t be in a management position?
Click to expand...

You think if they can't find you a job anywhere else ...." you've got what it takes to be a Centrelink manager "
 
www.theguardian.com

Warning over Centrelink call centres as Services Australia slashes contracts

Exclusive: Agency says decision to cut outsourced workload by 30% is due to reduced demand as unions warn of longer wait times
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

It's hard to tell whether this decision is due to Liberal budget cuts or Labor opposition to outsourcing. The fact the decision was only announced a week ago tells me Labor had at least something to do with it.

As harsh as it sounds I believe the Band-Aid needs to be ripped off - in a managed, gradual way. By Band-Aid, I mean manning a government department using private businesses who pay their staff bugger-all as well as using government staff.

These for-profit corporations should never have been allowed anywhere near administering the social security system. I think Centrelink needs to gradually reduce their contracts to nothing over the three-year term of this government. That should allow the employees to find new jobs and allow the hiring of casual, part-time and full-time replacements in-house. As if making social security decisions that affect vulnerable people's lives has ever been not in-house.
 
This is in reference to the job provider network or whatever the bloody thing is called now:



I feel like more should have been made of this. That's a lot of money pissed up against the wall (which in my opinion is what happens to most of the money that gets shovelled out to the for-profit profiteers in this sector).
 
eddiesmith said:
It is relevant as you don’t want to have people finding it easier to sit at home doing nothing because their welfare payments are so good.

What could be a good idea is an increase in payments, maybe to the Covid supplement level, but every year the payment drops.

So someone loses their job and they go onto 1200 a fortnight to keep them going, but if they haven’t got a job after 12 months their payment level drops until after about 3-4 years it’s back to current levels.

Gives people some better assistance if they need it but doesn’t support them long term.
Click to expand...

I a modern work place with training, safety and minimum wage, competing with globalisation and automation……some people simply aren’t worth employing.

Does this justify cutting them out of participation in society, workplace or hurting their social welfare payments?


A better integration of social welfare and work/ participation is a better solution
 
Father Jack said:
This is in reference to the job provider network or whatever the bloody thing is called now:



I feel like more should have been made of this. That's a lot of money pissed up against the wall (which in my opinion is what happens to most of the money that gets shovelled out to the for-profit profiteers in this sector).
Click to expand...

I get that you need to move with the times to a certain extent, but I think people who aren't comfortable with the internet or who have older devices are getting marginalised in many aspects of life. A poor person shouldn't be forced to buy a new expensive electronic device in order to participate in a compulsory program.

Just because an old person CAN use internet technology, doesn't mean they SHOULD. I don't mean that in a condescending way. I think people who are uncomfortable with newer technology need to be the leaders. If they want to learn and become comfortable with using it, good. But don't force them into becoming 'tech-savvy' if they don't want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top