Actually i think its always been this way just a lil bit worse as the years go by. single ppl without kids are even worse off i think because they get nothing @ all. I have a friend who went off the single parent payment just before newman came into power in QLD. They worked with her and helped her get a job and "training" then newman sacked everyone. She hasnt even had a proper interview since because she is over 55 and only has the tr4aining she had on that job.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/money/single-parents-face-double-welfare-hit/story-e6fredkc-1226553417167


Quote:

SINGLE parents forced on to the dole will have to wait up to six months for help in finding a job, a major welfare group says. Mission Australia describes it as "a double whammy" for the tens of thousands of people the federal government transferred from the Parenting Payment to the lower Newstart Allowance on January 1. Changes to the Job Services Australia system, that came into effect on July 1, means many of them will have to wait 26 weeks before they can access the intensive employment help they need. Previously the waiting time was 13 weeks and the hours of assistance available under the system have been reduced from 40 to 25. The changes worked against moving single parents onto Newstart, Mission Australia chief executive Toby Hall said. "It's clear we're dealing with something ill-conceived," he wrote in The Australian on Monday. "The less charitable would say it's all about delivering budget savings rather than a genuine attempt to get people off welfare." The measure is forecast to save the government $780 million over four years. Mr Hall says increasing Newstart by $50 a week would create an immediate mini economic stimulus as recipients spent the payment. An increase should be complemented also by an increase in work experience funding to encourage real workplace-based activity, he says.

SOB

The older you get, the harder it is.

It's a crying shame that some refuse to accept that this does happen, and more often than many realise.

In my experience, the Liberal party when in power offered far more assistance than does the current Labor party.

WFD for example was far more diverse than current offerings. People actually volunteered to participate. Then again, the Mutual Obligation program also offered many training opportunities including Green Corp a 'green' program, which the Labor party subsuequently reduced in size and scope. Personal Advisors worked one on one with customers experiencing boundaries to social and economic participation enabling referrals to a vast variety of progams and community services.

The Labor Govt offer little to assist those in need.

Volunteering for Green Corp or any of the other myriad of programmes the libs had people working for, did nothing to help long term unemployed . It's just free labour.

The work for the dole schemes are very good for those in long term unemployment. It helps their self-esteem, plus their bank account. The former is actually more important than the latter.
Growing up in country NSW I knew many 'unemployed losers' who hadn't worked a day in their life, nor had any money. But when the work for dole was offered, they took it up and the most significant change was their self-esteem in that they believed they were actually contributing to something and that this could lead onto other employment.

The thing is, people have to start somewhere; and if employers aren't going to give them a start, then work for the dole will.

Labor supporters just need to get this crappy idea out of their head that it's just some scheme to extract cheap labour power.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 10:30pm:

The work for the dole schemes are very good for those in long term unemployment. It helps their self-esteem, plus their bank account. The former is actually more important than the latter. Growing up in country NSW I knew many 'unemployed losers' who hadn't worked a day in their life, nor had any money. But when the work for dole was offered, they took it up and the most significant change was their self-esteem in that they believed they were actually contributing to something and that this could lead onto other employment. The thing is, people have to start somewhere; and if employers aren't going to give them a start, then work for the dole will. Labor supporters just need to get this crappy idea out of their head that it's just some scheme to extract cheap labour power.

How exactly is it good for their pocket? They have to pay fares to get there and back!

Its slave labour. Most prolly the jobs that were sacked in the public service. They should just pay properly and call it a job.

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 10:30pm:

The work for the dole schemes are very good for those in long term unemployment. It helps their self-esteem, plus their bank account. The former is actually more important than the latter. Growing up in country NSW I knew many 'unemployed losers' who hadn't worked a day in their life, nor had any money. But when the work for dole was offered, they took it up and the most significant change was their self-esteem in that they believed they were actually contributing to something and that this could lead onto other employment. The thing is, people have to start somewhere; and if employers aren't going to give them a start, then work for the dole will. Labor supporters just need to get this crappy idea out of their head that it's just some scheme to extract cheap labour power.

They are free to volunteer at their local hospital if they want ... cheap labor is all the work for the dole is about ... councils save a fortune

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 6:51am:

Actually i think its always been this way just a lil bit worse as the years go by. single ppl without kids are even worse off i think because they get nothing @ all. I have a friend who went off the single parent payment just before newman came into power in QLD. They worked with her and helped her get a job and "training" then newman sacked everyone. She hasnt even had a proper interview since because she is over 55 and only has the tr4aining she had on that job. SOB

Gee can anyone think why a 55 year old shouldn't be bludging off a single parent payment?   

Under the Liberal government, WFD included projects like, working on community radio, community art, admin roles in community access centres, child care and of course labouring which what Labor has turned the program into almost exclusively.

As Kat points out, WFD does help long term unemployed through improving the person's self esteem, helping them learn a routine, understanding the work ethic, providing them with a current referee, and a valid certificate... But not if it is the ruins of a program that Labor has made WFD

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 5:33am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 10:30pm: The work for the dole schemes are very good for those in long term unemployment. It helps their self-esteem, plus their bank account. The former is actually more important than the latter. Growing up in country NSW I knew many 'unemployed losers' who hadn't worked a day in their life, nor had any money. But when the work for dole was offered, they took it up and the most significant change was their self-esteem in that they believed they were actually contributing to something and that this could lead onto other employment. The thing is, people have to start somewhere; and if employers aren't going to give them a start, then work for the dole will. Labor supporters just need to get this crappy idea out of their head that it's just some scheme to extract cheap labour power. How exactly is it good for their pocket? They have to pay fares to get there and back! Its slave labour. Most prolly the jobs that were sacked in the public service. They should just pay properly and call it a job. SOB

This is the difference between yourself and myself; where you see exploitation, I see opportunities.

... wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:29am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 6:51am: Actually i think its always been this way just a lil bit worse as the years go by. single ppl without kids are even worse off i think because they get nothing @ all. I have a friend who went off the single parent payment just before newman came into power in QLD. They worked with her and helped her get a job and "training" then newman sacked everyone. She hasnt even had a proper interview since because she is over 55 and only has the tr4aining she had on that job. SOB Gee can anyone think why a 55 year old shouldn't be bludging off a single parent payment?

Shes a single parent. Is there an age limit?

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:46am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 5:33am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 10:30pm: The work for the dole schemes are very good for those in long term unemployment. It helps their self-esteem, plus their bank account. The former is actually more important than the latter. Growing up in country NSW I knew many 'unemployed losers' who hadn't worked a day in their life, nor had any money. But when the work for dole was offered, they took it up and the most significant change was their self-esteem in that they believed they were actually contributing to something and that this could lead onto other employment. The thing is, people have to start somewhere; and if employers aren't going to give them a start, then work for the dole will. Labor supporters just need to get this crappy idea out of their head that it's just some scheme to extract cheap labour power. How exactly is it good for their pocket? They have to pay fares to get there and back! Its slave labour. Most prolly the jobs that were sacked in the public service. They should just pay properly and call it a job. SOB This is the difference between yourself and myself; where you see exploitation, I see opportunities.

So exploitation is okay then?

SOB

Job advertisements have dropped for 10 months... back to back... with the overall drop in jobs advertised being 18%

In light of that... I do not think that the current WFD program is exploitation or opportunity... Rather, it is a program could once again be a valuable tool for that pool of unemployed who, due to a ligitimate lack of jobs, will experience longer periods of unemployment.

It is a valuable tool, because if properly facilitated, as the Liberal party did, ensuring variety of work experience that engages the community in meaningful ways... it would reduce the level of idleness experienced by the unemployed.

And incase you didn't know... idleness is very bad for humans.

If someone is looking for work that doesnt mean they are "idle" you know. Making them do slave labour can make them have less time to actually job search.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 11:06am:

If someone is looking for work that doesnt mean they are "idle" you know. Making them do slave labour can make them have less time to actually job search. Pfft... looking for work for is not a full time task. Many hours are left idle per day. Also, working at the local community radio or on the local art project, or learning how an office runs in the local neighbourhood house... as examples of WFD under Liberal party... are not examples of slave labour... but are examples of valuable experience gained in meaningful ways. SOB

I made some very important points which you have missed, and subsequently, your reply is irrelevent. So, I have highlighted the important points you missed to help you understand better the view I have expressed.


Quote:

Job advertisements have dropped for 10 months... back to back... with the overall drop in jobs advertised being 18% In light of that... I do not think that the current WFD program is exploitation or opportunity... Rather, it is a program could once again be a valuable tool for that pool of unemployed who, due to a ligitimate lack of jobs, will experience longer periods of unemployment. It is a valuable tool, because if properly facilitated, as the Liberal party did, ensuring variety of work experience that engages the community in meaningful ways... it would reduce the level of idleness experienced by the unemployed. And incase you didn't know... idleness is very bad for humans.

Otherwise, looking for work in such a climate is very disheartening, so good to have community engagement to maintain a sense of self worth.

I think you will find that most job seekers do not consider themselves "idle". How do you know it doesn't take all day anyway? Apparently the hoops centerlink makes you jump through take some time. Its stressful too so i would think that when they are done with a day of job seeking they dont want to go out and do manual labour - they want to rest and eat (if they have any food).

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 12:15pm:

I think you will find that most job seekers do not consider themselves "idle". How do you know it doesn't take all day anyway? Apparently the hoops centerlink makes you jump through take some time. Its stressful too so i would think that when they are done with a day of job seeking they dont want to go out and do manual labour - they want to rest and eat (if they have any food). SOB

So you argue that the unemployed are spending 8hrs per day 5 days per week looking for work or jumping centrelink hoops eh?

Well what the hey... it's a free country... you can choose to believe what ever you want to.

Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:15pm: I think you will find that most job seekers do not consider themselves "idle". How do you know it doesn't take all day anyway? Apparently the hoops centerlink makes you jump through take some time. Its stressful too so i would think that when they are done with a day of job seeking they dont want to go out and do manual labour - they want to rest and eat (if they have any food). SOB So you argue that the unemployed are spending 8hrs per day 5 days per week looking for work or jumping centrelink hoops eh? Well what the hey... it's a free country... you can choose to believe what ever you want to.

So Spot, since they are spending soooo much time looking for work, there seems to be an argument that they should be spending that time at their Job Service Provider instead of doing it from home. That would save them some money on paper, internet, phone etc... and get them that meal your worried about.

Also, they'd be closer to Centrelink so the hoops are not so cumbersome.

So do you approve of full time job search training at the Job Agency SOB?

Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:15pm: I think you will find that most job seekers do not consider themselves "idle". How do you know it doesn't take all day anyway? Apparently the hoops centerlink makes you jump through take some time. Its stressful too so i would think that when they are done with a day of job seeking they dont want to go out and do manual labour - they want to rest and eat (if they have any food). SOB So you argue that the unemployed are spending 8hrs per day 5 days per week looking for work or jumping centrelink hoops eh? Well what the hey... it's a free country... you can choose to believe what ever you want to.

So if it takes 7 hours you think they should be working for free for the other hour? Why? For punishment?

SOB

Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 12:29pm:

Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:24pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:15pm: I think you will find that most job seekers do not consider themselves "idle". How do you know it doesn't take all day anyway? Apparently the hoops centerlink makes you jump through take some time. Its stressful too so i would think that when they are done with a day of job seeking they dont want to go out and do manual labour - they want to rest and eat (if they have any food). SOB So you argue that the unemployed are spending 8hrs per day 5 days per week looking for work or jumping centrelink hoops eh? Well what the hey... it's a free country... you can choose to believe what ever you want to. So Spot, since they are spending soooo much time looking for work, there seems to be an argument that they should be spending that time at their Job Service Provider instead of doing it from home. That would save them some money on paper, internet, phone etc... and get them that meal your worried about. Also, they'd be closer to Centrelink so the hoops are not so cumbersome. So do you approve of full time job search training at the Job Agency SOB?

I dont understand what you are suggesting. Are you saying ppl should spend all day @ centerlink? Why? Some kind of punishment?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 1:04pm:

Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:24pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:15pm: I think you will find that most job seekers do not consider themselves "idle". How do you know it doesn't take all day anyway? Apparently the hoops centerlink makes you jump through take some time. Its stressful too so i would think that when they are done with a day of job seeking they dont want to go out and do manual labour - they want to rest and eat (if they have any food). SOB So you argue that the unemployed are spending 8hrs per day 5 days per week looking for work or jumping centrelink hoops eh? Well what the hey... it's a free country... you can choose to believe what ever you want to. So if it takes 7 hours you think they should be working for free for the other hour? Why? For punishment? SOB

Oh so it takes 7 hrs per day 5 days per week? Ok then, so I guess you'd agree with me that iff (if and only if) that is the case then they should be doing their Job Search from their job search agency within a full time (7hrs per day 5 days per week) job search training program so they can access all the resources they need cost free, so that they can be closer to centrelink and the hoops they put them through.... so that they can save their money, etc, etc.... Surely you see the benefits?

Otherwise, WFD is not a one hour per day 5 day per week program... so no I am not recommending that at all. WFD can only work if it is accepted that the unemployed are not engaged in full time looking for work... you reject that claim... we are now exploring the consequences and potentials of your claim that the unemployed are looking for work full time (7hrs per day 5 days per week).

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:55am:

... wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:29am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 6:51am: Actually i think its always been this way just a lil bit worse as the years go by. single ppl without kids are even worse off i think because they get nothing @ all. I have a friend who went off the single parent payment just before newman came into power in QLD. They worked with her and helped her get a job and "training" then newman sacked everyone. She hasnt even had a proper interview since because she is over 55 and only has the tr4aining she had on that job. SOB Gee can anyone think why a 55 year old shouldn't be bludging off a single parent payment?    Shes a single parent. Is there an age limit? SOB

I think it's reasonable that they be cut off before their kids turn 30, don't you?

... wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 1:13pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:55am: ... wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:29am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 6:51am: Actually i think its always been this way just a lil bit worse as the years go by. single ppl without kids are even worse off i think because they get nothing @ all. I have a friend who went off the single parent payment just before newman came into power in QLD. They worked with her and helped her get a job and "training" then newman sacked everyone. She hasnt even had a proper interview since because she is over 55 and only has the tr4aining she had on that job. SOB Gee can anyone think why a 55 year old shouldn't be bludging off a single parent payment?    Shes a single parent. Is there an age limit? SOB I think it's reasonable that they be cut off before their kids turn 30, don't you?

Obviously if she just went off it her kid just turned 8.

SOB

Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 1:12pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 1:04pm: Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:24pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:15pm: I think you will find that most job seekers do not consider themselves "idle". How do you know it doesn't take all day anyway? Apparently the hoops centerlink makes you jump through take some time. Its stressful too so i would think that when they are done with a day of job seeking they dont want to go out and do manual labour - they want to rest and eat (if they have any food). SOB So you argue that the unemployed are spending 8hrs per day 5 days per week looking for work or jumping centrelink hoops eh? Well what the hey... it's a free country... you can choose to believe what ever you want to. So if it takes 7 hours you think they should be working for free for the other hour? Why? For punishment? SOB Oh so it takes 7 hrs per day 5 days per week? Ok then, so I guess you'd agree with me that iff (if and only if) that is the case then they should be doing their Job Search from their job search agency within a full time (7hrs per day 5 days per week) job search training program so they can access all the resources they need cost free, so that they can be closer to centrelink and the hoops they put them through.... so that they can save their money, etc, etc.... Surely you see the benefits? Otherwise, WFD is not a one hour per day 5 day per week program... so no I am not recommending that at all. WFD can only work if it is accepted that the unemployed are not engaged in full time looking for work... you reject that claim... we are now exploring the consequences and potentials of your claim that the unemployed are looking for work full time (7hrs per day 5 days per week).

See you just repeated it again. Why should they spend all that time @ centerlink? Why not do it @ home? Hmm?

And why do you think all job seekers are idle? Were you idle when you were a job seeker?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:44pm:

Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 1:12pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 1:04pm: Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:24pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:15pm: I think you will find that most job seekers do not consider themselves "idle". How do you know it doesn't take all day anyway? Apparently the hoops centerlink makes you jump through take some time. Its stressful too so i would think that when they are done with a day of job seeking they dont want to go out and do manual labour - they want to rest and eat (if they have any food). SOB So you argue that the unemployed are spending 8hrs per day 5 days per week looking for work or jumping centrelink hoops eh? Well what the hey... it's a free country... you can choose to believe what ever you want to. So if it takes 7 hours you think they should be working for free for the other hour? Why? For punishment? SOB Oh so it takes 7 hrs per day 5 days per week? Ok then, so I guess you'd agree with me that iff (if and only if) that is the case then they should be doing their Job Search from their job search agency within a full time (7hrs per day 5 days per week) job search training program so they can access all the resources they need cost free, so that they can be closer to centrelink and the hoops they put them through.... so that they can save their money, etc, etc.... Surely you see the benefits? Otherwise, WFD is not a one hour per day 5 day per week program... so no I am not recommending that at all. WFD can only work if it is accepted that the unemployed are not engaged in full time looking for work... you reject that claim... we are now exploring the consequences and potentials of your claim that the unemployed are looking for work full time (7hrs per day 5 days per week). See you just repeated it again. Why should they spend all that time @ centerlink? Why not do it @ home? Hmm?

Why do you want the unemployed on welfare spending money they cannot afford to spend on looking for work when they could do it for nothing at the Job Service Provider? Do you want to increase their suffering needlessly?

As for centrelink, I don't actually know what these hoops are to which you refer... you will have to clarify what you mean... or your lack of knowing which is more to the case.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:39pm:

... wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 1:13pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:55am: ... wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:29am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 6:51am: Actually i think its always been this way just a lil bit worse as the years go by. single ppl without kids are even worse off i think because they get nothing @ all. I have a friend who went off the single parent payment just before newman came into power in QLD. They worked with her and helped her get a job and "training" then newman sacked everyone. She hasnt even had a proper interview since because she is over 55 and only has the tr4aining she had on that job. SOB Gee can anyone think why a 55 year old shouldn't be bludging off a single parent payment?    Shes a single parent. Is there an age limit? SOB I think it's reasonable that they be cut off before their kids turn 30, don't you? Obviously if she just went off it her kid just turned 8. SOB

Which means she was at least 47 when she had her kid?  I don't think so mate.  I call BS.

... wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:05pm:

Which means she was at least 47 when she had her kid?  I don't think so mate.  I call BS.

Not necessarily. She could have been a 'grandfathered' case which have since 010113 moved to new start. If she was, then her children could have been early teens for all we know.

Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:58pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:44pm: Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 1:12pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 1:04pm: Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:24pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 12:15pm: I think you will find that most job seekers do not consider themselves "idle". How do you know it doesn't take all day anyway? Apparently the hoops centerlink makes you jump through take some time. Its stressful too so i would think that when they are done with a day of job seeking they dont want to go out and do manual labour - they want to rest and eat (if they have any food). SOB So you argue that the unemployed are spending 8hrs per day 5 days per week looking for work or jumping centrelink hoops eh? Well what the hey... it's a free country... you can choose to believe what ever you want to. So if it takes 7 hours you think they should be working for free for the other hour? Why? For punishment? SOB Oh so it takes 7 hrs per day 5 days per week? Ok then, so I guess you'd agree with me that iff (if and only if) that is the case then they should be doing their Job Search from their job search agency within a full time (7hrs per day 5 days per week) job search training program so they can access all the resources they need cost free, so that they can be closer to centrelink and the hoops they put them through.... so that they can save their money, etc, etc.... Surely you see the benefits? Otherwise, WFD is not a one hour per day 5 day per week program... so no I am not recommending that at all. WFD can only work if it is accepted that the unemployed are not engaged in full time looking for work... you reject that claim... we are now exploring the consequences and potentials of your claim that the unemployed are looking for work full time (7hrs per day 5 days per week). See you just repeated it again. Why should they spend all that time @ centerlink? Why not do it @ home? Hmm? Why do you want the unemployed on welfare spending money they cannot afford to spend on looking for work when they could do it for nothing at the Job Service Provider? Do you want to increase their suffering needlessly? As for centrelink, I don't actually know what these hoops are to which you refer... you will have to clarify what you mean... or your lack of knowing which is more to the case.

What can they do for nothing @ the service provider? Look for a job? They prolly do i dont know do you know? I doubt its a good idea to have everyone in that lil office though. They would need more staff and computers.

As for hoops well last i heard job seekers were supposed to provide evidence of 10 job interviews per fortnight in order to get a check. Thats 1 per day. Interviews! They have to find them then get ready for them and get to them etc.

You are aware this is a thread about single parents being put onto the dole suddenly and all @ once (what was the number 10k of them?). There are not that many jobs out there. These ppl cant do shift work either. They have to be rigid in their criteria for a job because they have to care for children.

BTW thats a bit dishonest trying to twist things ar5ound so it looks like im saying the opposite of what i say. Please refrain from that. Oh and how about answering my question too - why should they go to centerlink all day? Whats your reason?

SOB

... wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:05pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:39pm: ... wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 1:13pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:55am: ... wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:29am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 6:51am: Actually i think its always been this way just a lil bit worse as the years go by. single ppl without kids are even worse off i think because they get nothing @ all. I have a friend who went off the single parent payment just before newman came into power in QLD. They worked with her and helped her get a job and "training" then newman sacked everyone. She hasnt even had a proper interview since because she is over 55 and only has the tr4aining she had on that job. SOB Gee can anyone think why a 55 year old shouldn't be bludging off a single parent payment?    Shes a single parent. Is there an age limit? SOB I think it's reasonable that they be cut off before their kids turn 30, don't you? Obviously if she just went off it her kid just turned 8. SOB Which means she was at least 47 when she had her kid?  I don't think so mate.  I call BS.

Actually the kid is 10. She didnt go off the pension because of the new law it was because she wanted to get a job and the kid was old enough. I just asked her. And yes she had the kid @ an older than usual age. Thing is because of the new thing she cant get back on the pension.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:34pm:

As for hoops well last i heard job seekers were supposed to provide evidence of 10 job interviews per fortnight in order to get a check. Thats 1 per day. Interviews! They have to find them then get ready for them and get to them etc.

Do you have evidence of that? No!
Can you get evidence of that? No!

And why don't you have or can't you get evidence? Because it is not true.


Quote:

You are aware this is a thread about single parents being put onto the dole suddenly and all @ once (what was the number 10k of them?). There are not that many jobs out there. These ppl cant do shift work either. They have to be rigid in their criteria for a job because they have to care for children.

Yet most of them are working part time already. So your pitiful attitutude towards these people is unnecessary and unwelcome. A more positive attitude towards their plight is welcomed by them and by those, such as myself, who work in welfare.

You can't do peeps... attitude destroyers is what you are. 


Quote:

Oh and how about answering my question too - why should they go to centerlink all day? Whats your reason? SOB

When you can show me where i said that they should go to Centrelink all day, I will answer the question.

opps. double post

Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:53pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 3:34pm: As for hoops well last i heard job seekers were supposed to provide evidence of 10 job interviews per fortnight in order to get a check. Thats 1 per day. Interviews! They have to find them then get ready for them and get to them etc. Do you have evidence of that? No! Can you get evidence of that? No! And why don't you have or can't you get evidence? Because it is not true. Quote: You are aware this is a thread about single parents being put onto the dole suddenly and all @ once (what was the number 10k of them?). There are not that many jobs out there. These ppl cant do shift work either. They have to be rigid in their criteria for a job because they have to care for children. Yet most of them are working part time already. So your pitiful attitutude towards these people is unnecessary and unwelcome. A more positive attitude towards their plight is welcomed by them and by those, such as myself, who work in welfare. You can't do peeps... attitude destroyers is what you are.  [quote]Oh and how about answering my question too - why should they go to centerlink all day? Whats your reason? SOB

When you can show me where i said that they should go to Centrelink all day, I will answer the question. [/quote]

I asked you twice to explain what you meant by that and you didnt explain so i had to just guess., If thats not what you meant then please explain what you did mean.

That is what it was last time someone i knew was on the dole and had to fill out forms. I dont know what it is now and said that. Can you prove they dont? Do you know what the current hoops are? I bet you dont so you shouldnt call other ppl liars when you dont actually know.

Now. What is my "pitiful attitude towards these ppl"? Hmmm? You are the one with the attitude mate.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 4:01pm:

I asked you twice to explain what you meant by that and you didnt explain so i had to just guess., If thats not what you meant then please explain what you did mean.

What I meant by what? That the unemployed should spend all day at Centrelink? Again, show me where I said that and I will respond to it.


Quote:

That is what it was last time someone i knew was on the dole and had to fill out forms.

Well, that someone you knew was wrong and you are a fool for believing that somone and their silly urban myths.


Quote:

I dont know what it is now and said that.

Activity test obligations as they pertain to the job seeker diary have not changed between then and now.


Quote:

Can you prove they dont?

Of course I can. But the onus is not on I good sir to prove you otherwise... It is for you to prove your case. You made the claim... so substanciate it.

Here's a hint: All you need to know is in the Social Security Law


Quote:

Do you know what the current hoops are?

Of course I do.


Quote:

I bet you dont so you shouldnt call other ppl liars when you dont actually know.

I bet I do.  ;D


Quote:

Now. What is my "pitiful attitude towards these ppl"? Hmmm? SOB

Your attitude is one of keeping them down instead of lifting them up... you find reasons why they can't do... but they NEED reasons why they can. You tell them there is no hope... but I prefer to tell them that with this and that (i.e. training, child care relief, JET child care, work experience, etc) they can.

If you keep on telling people that their situation is hopeless using misinformation and urban myth to justify your naysaying, then those affected by your words will begin to believe you and stop trying.

In this thread, you like to find reasons why the unemployed can't. You sir and your ilk are soul destroyers with your sh!tty attitude towards those in need. You pull the ladder up so that they can't get a foot hold... and from that position you offer them pity... I prefer to lower the ladder so they can begin their climb towards their goals and from that position I offer them hope.

Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Well, that someone you knew was wrong and you are a fool for believing that somone and their silly urban myths.

No they werent. They were looking for a job, And they got one too.


Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Activity test obligations as they pertain to the job seeker diary have not changed between then and now.

When?


Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Of course I can. But the onus is not on I good sir to prove you otherwise... It is for you to prove your case. You made the claim... so substanciate it. Here's a hint: All you need to know is in the Social Security Law

You reckon you know then why did you ask?


Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Of course I do.

You reckon you know then why did you ask?


Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Your attitude is one of keeping them down instead of lifting them up... you find reasons why they can't do... but they NEED reasons why they can. You tell them there is no hope... but I prefer to tell them that with this and that (i.e. training, child care relief, JET child care, work experience, etc) they can.

No i dont liar i just dont want them to be exploited. Why do you think you can tell me what i think?


Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 4:34pm:

If you keep on telling people that their situation is hopeless using misinformation and urban myth to justify your naysaying, then those affected by your words will begin to believe you and stop trying.

What are you talking about? What "naysaying"?


Sappho wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 4:34pm:

In this thread, you like to find reasons why the unemployed can't. You sir and your ilk are soul destroyers with your sh!tty attitude towards those in need. You pull the ladder up so that they can't get a foot hold... and from that position you offer them pity... I prefer to lower the ladder so they can begin their climb towards their goals and from that position I offer them hope.

Nope. I havent done anything of the sort. I just dont like WFD because it is slave labour. They should pay a decent wage and call it a job.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 5:01pm:

Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 4:34pm: Well, that someone you knew was wrong and you are a fool for believing that somone and their silly urban myths. No they werent. They were looking for a job, And they got one too.

They? How can it be 'they' when you said it was 'someone' you knew. 'Someone' refers to one person, and 'they' refers to more than one person.

So which is it SOB, 'someone' or 'they' told you that "job seekers were supposed to provide evidence of 10 job interviews per fortnight in order to get a check. Thats 1 per day. Interviews!"?

What ever the case. THEY WERE WRONG AND YOU ARE A FOOL TO HAVE BELIEVED THAT SOMEONE OR THEM!

Jesus mate, COMMON SENSE and EXPERIENCE, both of which you obviously lack, should have set the sirens sounding when you heard that piece of bullsh!t.

Nonetheless, it is a classic example of the kinds of dirty tricks people use against those in need to keep them the low men on the totem.


Quote:

Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 4:34pm: Activity test obligations as they pertain to the job seeker diary have not changed between then and now. When?

When what?


Quote:

Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 4:34pm: Of course I can. But the onus is not on I good sir to prove you otherwise... It is for you to prove your case. You made the claim... so substanciate it. Here's a hint: All you need to know is in the Social Security Law You reckon you know then why did you ask?

Because you said... "Apparently the hoops centerlink makes you jump through take some time." So I wanted to know what you meant by that.

Geez... are you suggesting that I'm not allowed to seek clarification from you?


Quote:

Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 4:34pm: Of course I do. You reckon you know then why did you ask?

See above.


Quote:

Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 4:34pm: Your attitude is one of keeping them down instead of lifting them up... you find reasons why they can't do... but they NEED reasons why they can. You tell them there is no hope... but I prefer to tell them that with this and that (i.e. training, child care relief, JET child care, work experience, etc) they can. No i dont liar

yes you do liar... and the urban myths being spread by you in this thread, which for the unemployed would be very scary indeed, is a classic example of what i am referring to.... How dare you scare the unemployed with your lies!

Why do you tell lies?
Why do you want to scare the unemployed? Haven't they got enough to deal with without your scare mongering behaviour?


Quote:

Sappho wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 4:34pm: If you keep on telling people that their situation is hopeless using misinformation and urban myth to justify your naysaying, then those affected by your words will begin to believe you and stop trying. What are you talking about? What "naysaying"?

See above for an example. At your request I can provide more.


Quote:

Nope. I havent done anything of the sort.

Then why are you scaring the unemployed into believing that they have to have attended 10 job interviews per f/night every f/night?

More than that... why are you doing it in a thread about single mothers on new start when they are not required to complete a job seeker diary in the first place.

Quote:

They? How can it be 'they' when you said it was 'someone' you knew. 'Someone' refers to one person, and 'they' refers to more than one person.

My grammar is correct. What is wrong with you?


Quote:

When what?

You said than and now - when was then?


Quote:

More than that... why are you doing it in a thread about single mothers on new start when they are not required to complete a job seeker diary in the first place.

If they are on the dole dont they have to do it? Seriously? Why would they be exempt?

Obviously your post was full of crap. You never addressed my point which is still that WFD is slave labour and should be given a proper wage and called a job. You are trolling me prolly because kat isnt here to moderate.

SOB

i actually think work for the dole is a marvellous concept.
it encourages people to be job ready, even down to little things like punctuality and getting transport organised.
it provides social interaction, something facebook and poker machines could never do.
and you could even get some jobs done. maybe mowing pensioners lawns or pulling weeds in local parks.
it should be seen as an opportunity to contribute and show gratitude to the taxpayer who is supporting you.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 6:07am:

i actually think work for the dole is a marvellous concept. it encourages people to be job ready, even down to little things like punctuality and getting transport organised. it provides social interaction, something facebook and poker machines could never do. and you could even get some jobs done. maybe mowing pensioners lawns or pulling weeds in local parks. it should be seen as an opportunity to contribute and show gratitude to the taxpayer who is supporting you.

That isnt what they get you to do though. If they paid a proper wage and called it a job it would be more honest.

SOB

Get rid of work for the dole rubbish.  Most unemployed if give a choice, would rather have nothing to do with it.  In most cases its nothing more than a waste of time.  Not funded properly, or run properly.  Yes talk to the unemployed, and you will see, if given a choice most would say thanks, but no thanks to work for the dole.     ;) 

wrote on Feb 5^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:

Most unemployed if give a choice, would rather have nothing to do with it.

No doubt.  Why work when you can get money for nothing?  that's the attitude that sees them on the dole in the first place.

... wrote on Feb 5^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

wrote on Feb 5th, 2013 at 4:08pm: Most unemployed if give a choice, would rather have nothing to do with it. No doubt.  Why work when you can get money for nothing?  that's the attitude that sees them on the dole in the first place.

Yeah 10k single mothers chose to go on the dole @ the same time and 10k workers in QLD chose to be sacked by newman.

SOB

I was unaware that once you lost a job, you couldn't get a new one. 

The unemployed dont get paid, to do work for the dole rubbish.     :(          

So what do they get paid to do?

They get unemployment benefit, so they can survive till they can get a suitable job that pays wages.     ;)   

Would it kill them to get a friggin move on?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 4:58am:

Quote: More than that... why are you doing it in a thread about single mothers on new start when they are not required to complete a job seeker diary in the first place. If they are on the dole dont they have to do it?

No.
Quote:

Seriously?

Yes.
Quote:

Why would they be exempt?

Because they are Principle Carers and, assuming that they have a full work capacity and no exemptions, their activity test requires that they look for work, study, training, vol work (as they wish it) of up to 15 hrs per week, which equates to 4-6 work efforts per fortnight depending upon where they are located.

A 'work effort' is not a 'job interview'. Rather, it is any effort made to secure work including cold canvasing, sending a resume etc.

Many principle carer's who have been long term unemployed are encouraged to return to study as their first option as they still attract the Education Entry Payment and Pensioner Education Suppliment coupled with JET (Jobs, Education, Training) Child Care Fee Relief which makes up the difference between the full cost of child care and the Child Care Benefit... meaning such parents pay less than $1 a day for child care and before/after school care.

Those parents who are Home Schooling their children, who have large families (4 or more children), who are already meeting their activity test requirements, who are caring for a child with special needs... and a plethora of other circumstances do not need to satisfy the looking for work, study, training, vol work test.. because they are exempt or already do what they need to do.

WFD is not a compulsory program for Principle Carers. Principle Carer's are not eligible for Full Time WFD. 


Quote:

Obviously your post was full of crap.

Obviously you have no idea who you are debating with!


Quote:

You never addressed my point which is still that WFD is slave labour and should be given a proper wage and called a job.

Quote:

You are aware this is a thread about single parents being put onto the dole....

Because you said that this topic is about Single Parents, I assume in an attempt to get me back on topic... and now that I'm back on topic, you have an issue with that too it seems.

WFD is off topic. It has nothing to do with Principle Carer's. So I have no need to answer your off topic question.



Quote:

You are trolling me prolly because kat isnt here to moderate. SOB

Not trolling you at all. Just making sure that Centrelink customers are properly informed so they won't get spooked by you and your scare mongering.

Well thats a relief anyway that principle carers dont have to do WFD. I wouldn't be surprised if a government tries to make it so though.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 4:58am:

Quote: They? How can it be 'they' when you said it was 'someone' you knew. 'Someone' refers to one person, and 'they' refers to more than one person. My grammar is correct. What is wrong with you? [quote]When what?

You said than and now - when was then?


Quote:

More than that... why are you doing it in a thread about single mothers on new start when they are not required to complete a job seeker diary in the first place.

If they are on the dole dont they have to do it? Seriously? Why would they be exempt?

Obviously your post was full of crap. You never addressed my point which is still that WFD is slave labour and should be given a proper wage and called a job. You are trolling me prolly because kat isnt here to moderate.
SOB[/quote]


It probably wouldn't be a good idea to rely on that being the case. Not posting, and not being around are not the same thing. I did say that I'd still be here for this board.

KAt.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 5:53am:

I wouldn't be surprised if a government tries to make it so though. SOB

Just despicable SOB... seems if you can't scare those in most need with lies masquerading as fact, you'll scare them with an unreasonable fear of future changes.

So for the customers out there... what SOB suggests is political suicide, because in order for principle carer's to be eligible for WFD, they must first increase their work capacity from 15 hrs per week to 22 hrs per week.

Now, 22 hrs per week may sound reasonable, but, these are single parents we are talking about, and society wants its parents to parent well. That takes time to do well... time that must be taken from the work week.

Nonetheless... good parenting also entails ensuring that your children see their parents contributing economically to society, lest those children become the product of generational welfare.

15hrs per week in economic participation improves their finacial situation, the own sense of self worth and improves the opportunities of their children who can see that there is more to life than welfare.

SOB... do you have anything positive to contribute to this thread? What for example do you think of the principle carer's activity test... not as bad as you reckoned surely?

Sappho wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 5:53am: I wouldn't be surprised if a government tries to make it so though. SOB Just despicable SOB... seems if you can't scare those in most need with lies masquerading as fact, you'll scare them with an unreasonable fear of future changes. So for the customers out there... what SOB suggests is political suicide, because in order for principle carer's to be eligible for WFD, they must first increase their work capacity from 15 hrs per week to 22 hrs per week. Now, 22 hrs per week may sound reasonable, but, these are single parents we are talking about, and society wants its parents to parent well. That takes time to do well... time that must be taken from the work week. Nonetheless... good parenting also entails ensuring that your children see their parents contributing economically to society, lest those children become the product of generational welfare. 15hrs per week in economic participation improves their finacial situation, the own sense of self worth and improves the opportunities of their children who can see that there is more to life than welfare. SOB... do you have anything positive to contribute to this thread? What for example do you think of the principle carer's activity test... not as bad as you reckoned surely?

I see.

Well lay your extreme paranoia to rest you have caught me out. I am actually tony abbot in disguise come here to run a fear campaign.

SOB

So I was right. You have nothing positive to contribute to the thread you started. That the whole idea of your thread was to scare single parents, who have enough on their plate already.

You offer no hope.
You offer no encouragement.
You offer no truths.

This thread then was nothing more than an excercise in trolling on your part at the expense on those most vunerable in our society.

You are a low life sir! Gutter trash no less... and it's a good thing that you and your ilk do not work in Welfare.

Sappho wrote on Feb 7^th, 2013 at 7:17am:

So I was right. You have nothing positive to contribute to the thread you started. That the whole idea of your thread was to scare single parents, who have enough on their plate already. You offer no hope. You offer no encouragement. You offer no truths. This thread then was nothing more than an excercise in trolling on your part at the expense on those most vunerable in our society. You are a low life sir! Gutter trash no less... and it's a good thing that you and your ilk do not work in Welfare.

No and if you had any sense @ all you would see i was just trying to support kats new area by posting here.

You are paranoid. Seriously you should get some meds for it. I wasnt trying to scare anyone. I posted an article and mentioned my friend. Your paranoid semantics are ridiculous though and make it impossible to have a discussion.

Ah and FYI i did work in welfare for several years. You prolly shouldn't just assume things huh?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 7^th, 2013 at 9:06am:

Ah and FYI i did work in welfare for several years.

LOL.  of course you did.  Was that before or after you were a fighter pilot?

... wrote on Feb 7^th, 2013 at 10:22am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 7th, 2013 at 9:06am: Ah and FYI i did work in welfare for several years. LOL.  of course you did.  Was that before or after you were a fighter pilot?

I was never a fighter pilot.

SOB

I know.

... wrote on Feb 7^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

I know.

Then why did you say i was?

SOB

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/582/picard-facepalm.jpg

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/582/picard-facepalm.jpg

Go away troll

SOB

I think there's been more than enough of this sort of thing elsewhere. Let's keep it off here, OK?

Consider this as (a) an unofficial warning and (b) a promise that warnings by PP may follow, and
sin-binning isn't an impossibility.

I WANT this board to work. Ans so, I'm sure, do SOME of you.

But I, and it, need your help and co-operation for it to do so.

'General' and 'PolSucks' are the 'abuse' channels.

This is not, nor will I let it become so.

So give it a fair go, eh fellas?

Kat.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 7^th, 2013 at 9:06am:

Ah and FYI i did work in welfare for several years. You prolly shouldn't just assume things huh? SOB

What field of welfare did you work within SOB?

Sappho wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 10:21am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 7th, 2013 at 9:06am: Ah and FYI i did work in welfare for several years. You prolly shouldn't just assume things huh? SOB What field of welfare did you work within SOB?

More than likely a recipient on work for the dole.

KJT1981 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 11:22am:

Sappho wrote on Feb 9th, 2013 at 10:21am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 7th, 2013 at 9:06am: Ah and FYI i did work in welfare for several years. You prolly shouldn't just assume things huh? SOB What field of welfare did you work within SOB? More than likely a recipient on work for the dole.

Go away troll

SOB

Sappho asked you a legitimate question.

SOB, you must have missed my question, because it was trolled, but I am interested to know what field of Welfare you worked within nonetheless.

Sappho wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 2:52pm:

SOB, you must have missed my question, because it was trolled, but I am interested to know what field of Welfare you worked within nonetheless.

Miss Borg doesn't miss questions, she just ignores them.

KJT1981 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

Sappho wrote on Feb 9th, 2013 at 2:52pm: SOB, you must have missed my question, because it was trolled, but I am interested to know what field of Welfare you worked within nonetheless. Miss Borg doesn't miss questions, she just ignores them.

Eff off Troll. You're not welcome.

I would rather assume the best of SOB in this instance and assume that he shall inform me of his field of welfare so that I may engage him in debate... which is the purpose of this forum... not trolling.

Sappho wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 4:25pm:

KJT1981 wrote on Feb 9th, 2013 at 3:40pm: Sappho wrote on Feb 9th, 2013 at 2:52pm: SOB, you must have missed my question, because it was trolled, but I am interested to know what field of Welfare you worked within nonetheless. Miss Borg doesn't miss questions, she just ignores them. Eff off Troll. You're not welcome. I would rather assume the best of SOB in this instance and assume that he shall inform me of his field of welfare so that I may engage him in debate... which is the purpose of this forum... not trolling.

1255 posts and you are trying to engage Miss Borg in a debate?

Take a look around and see the style of Miss Borg debating.

KJT1981 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

Sappho wrote on Feb 9th, 2013 at 4:25pm: KJT1981 wrote on Feb 9th, 2013 at 3:40pm: Sappho wrote on Feb 9th, 2013 at 2:52pm: SOB, you must have missed my question, because it was trolled, but I am interested to know what field of Welfare you worked within nonetheless. Miss Borg doesn't miss questions, she just ignores them. Eff off Troll. You're not welcome. I would rather assume the best of SOB in this instance and assume that he shall inform me of his field of welfare so that I may engage him in debate... which is the purpose of this forum... not trolling. 1255 posts and you are trying to engage Miss Borg in a debate? Take a look around and see the style of Miss Borg debating.

Go away troll. Havent seen you "debating" anywhere just abuse and trolling.

SOB

Sappho wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 2:52pm:

SOB, you must have missed my question, because it was trolled, but I am interested to know what field of Welfare you worked within nonetheless.

I dont really want to debate it but I ran a welfare centre in cairns in water street in 1986. I mainly did referrals but there were 6 indonesian refugees living upstairs in the building also. I negotiated 6 beds in the cairns hospital for ppl to come off methodone and i arranged food donations to ozanam house until they harassed me too much about religion and i had to give them a miss. I mainly dealt with drug addicts though my job wasnt really well defined and just about anyone would drop in and get referred to the proper place.

I had a lot of trouble with religious freaks in those days. Some "pastor" from some church called "the christian life fellowship" kept coming to my office and telling me that god told him to tell me to quit my job and go work for him. He was upset because i didnt refer ppl to him. He used to wait outside for me when i banned him from the premises.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 5:02am:

Sappho wrote on Feb 9th, 2013 at 2:52pm: SOB, you must have missed my question, because it was trolled, but I am interested to know what field of Welfare you worked within nonetheless. I dont really want to debate it but I ran a welfare centre in cairns in water street in 1986.

Debate is the wrong word... Discussion is more to the point.


Quote:

I mainly did referrals but there were 6 indonesian refugees living upstairs in the building also. I negotiated 6 beds in the cairns hospital for ppl to come off methodone and i arranged food donations

Can't be sure if you are referring to a Community House or a Material Aid centre, both of which engage the kind of work you refer to... both of which are essential welfare services.


Quote:

I had a lot of trouble with religious freaks in those days. Some "pastor" from some church called "the christian life fellowship" kept coming to my office and telling me that god told him to tell me to quit my job and go work for him. He was upset because i didnt refer ppl to him. He used to wait outside for me when i banned him from the premises. SOB

Well, I haven't heard of anything so extreme as that... but equally, I have stories from work mates that are not dissimilar... including bias hiring practices and the limiting of services on religious moral grounds.

Unfortuantly, religion has the monopoly on charity in Australia.

Sappho wrote: - "the limiting of services on religious moral grounds.

Unfortunately, religion has the monopoly on charity in Australia".


Your comment reminded me of an experience I had in around 1992 or 93. I'd been doing
some sub-contract work in the mining game, and had just completed a contract.

Due to some snag with transferring the money, my pay was delayed, as was that of my
crew. As there were some pressing bills that needed to be paid, I went to my local Smith
Family office to seek assistance with my power bill.

I was told, and I quote (as well as memory will allow) "We're not interested in helping you
single men, you are all drug-users or alcoholics. You blow your dole-cheques then expect
us to carry you".

I walked out in disgust, literally steaming.

The fact that I was neither an alkie nor a druggie seemed to escape her entirely, as did the fact
that I needed assistance because of a delayed wages payment, not a wasted dole-cheque (ie, I
wasn't unemployed).

Previously, I'd always been a supporter of the Smith Family, and used to donate to them
regularly.

I haven't donated a red cent to them since.

That's actually very common Kat... even today. And the reason why, is that women, children and elders still come first where it is that material aid is limited and it's always limited.

At community engagement meetings, when all local Welfare groups come together (not Job Service Providers), they try and lobbey us for additional funding and less bureaucratic wrangling when tendering. And every time, we tell them that we are apolitical and cannot engage such converstations because we are apolitical, but support their right to lobbey government.

And I believe that this is where they fall in a heap... They have not mastered the art of lobbying government. At one of these annual meetings, I was not in a good frame of mind... so sick of their whining was I, when it happened that one of the representitives from the Brotherhood of St Lawence dared to say that lobbying government was useless. "Really!" says I. "Perhaps you should look to Capitalism and how it lobbies government, for Capitalists are very successful in their goals." It didn't go down well, but it did allow us to move on to the real business of these meetings which was and is to work more closely with Community Welfare Agencies for the benefit of our mutual customers.

In your case, the lack of assistance provided was just despicable, because whilst it was that they could not help you, they could have provided you with an internal referral to another agency who could, or provided you with a list of places you could go for free wholesome meals and given you a free ticket for public transport to get there. Heck... they could have suggested you try The Local Courts who still have a Poor Box for those in desperate need.

The Welfare Industry, whilst noble and good, are very poorly managed.

Sappho wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 10th, 2013 at 5:02am: I mainly did referrals but there were 6 indonesian refugees living upstairs in the building also. I negotiated 6 beds in the cairns hospital for ppl to come off methodone and i arranged food donations Can't be sure if you are referring to a Community House or a Material Aid centre, both of which engage the kind of work you refer to... both of which are essential welfare services.

Not sure what you are referring to now but ozanam house was a catholic run place that provided 1 meal a day to ppl that were hungry. Mostly aboriginals went there and i used to go help out after work until they sacked me for not praying to the statue in the doorway. in fact they made everyone pray to the statue before they got any food.

As for the building where i worked well it was called a "welfare centre" and i worked directly for a Cairns politician. the building though also had a flat upstairs and the refugees were in there when i got the job. Nobody knew how to get rid of them. Nobody would accept responsibility. In the end they went to jail because i called the police when i heard a baby crying (there were no women up there). Interestingly the baby turned out to be aboriginal (the indonesians were torturing it) and nobody ever claimed it - the hospital tried to dump it on me.

I can only hope that things are different these days. I expect the hospital allows ppl to get off methodone now. I never worked in welfare again after that job - i went back to uni to do something else. Welfare is too stressful.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 5:50am:

Welfare is too stressful. SOB

Welfare is profoundly stressful, because as you learned... you sometimes have to be cruel to be kind... you sometimes have to let the client wear the full weight of their decisions... and for many that comes with burn out or worse... desensitization to the plights of those in need. 

my missing post turned up after all. 

There is speculation in the media, if Sky news is anything to go by, that the budget savings from the changes to single parent payments will be greater than that derived from the mining tax.

Labor's socialism sucks.