For a fair go for the unemployed.  Vote1- Australian Greens.  The fair and sensible people.  (Send the others a protest vote).

If unemployment handouts were fair, what incentive would there be to get them into a job?
Unemployment would rise as there will be less people willing to work.
Then Australia would suffer from a Labour shortage.
I Would like to see an end to Unemployment handouts for those under 30's as there is a large demand for workers in that age group. then the money saved could be directed to aged pensions

While it is true the majority of people on the Unemployment benefits are true claims that are trying to get a job, there are a small percentage of people who aren't even attempting to get a job. As a result, I believe that if people want the Unemployment benefit, they should be made to apply for a certain amount of jobs at a time. If they don't, they don't get their payment for the week. That way, we can assure that the payments aren't abused and they are actively trying to get a job.

Unlike some people I do not see the unemployment benefit as a hand  out.  Nor should it be seen as such, as it was never intended to be a hand out.   We also must remember several things.  The unemployed most certainly do have to comply with the rules, and those rule are enforced.  They must look for jobs, or if not they are indeed punished, by having their already ridiculously low benefits partly cut.  Let us also remember those that are working today, could very well be unemployed tomorrow.  Yes the unemployed should protest on August 21, don't vote labor or liberal send them a protest.  After all lets remember, the unemployed vote too.

I'd go further, and suggest that all human beings have inherent needs and value in any community - and, sadly and ironically, that even the unemployed perform a key economic role of keeping wage inflation down...

Moreover, I reckon that draconian trends in countries such as Australia, that systematically scapegoat the systemically disadvantaged, underprivileged (and especially the abused, abandoned, disabled and mentally ill) are unconscionably callous and inhumane...

Therefore, I would urge all welfare recipients to lodge protest votes against the draconian LibLabs - i.e. vote 1 Greens then preference the major party that they trust the least...

This protest will send a message to the LibLabs that they are trending too far towards the right on socio-economic matters - and, given the increasingly-uncertain outcome in the lower house, such a protest will be especially crucial in the Senate...

Well there you go, so in other words there are a lot of hoops that the unemployed must jump through.  In any case we know that the pensioners got a fair rise.  We also know that the low income workers got a fair rise.  Its high time the unemployed had a fair increase as well.

Sappho wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 5:31pm:


Sadly and ironically, if there were sufficient REAL jobs out there, then simple supply/demand factors would precipitate rapid rises in wages and conversions from casual/part-time to full-time employment - and all of this tokenistic and demeaning hoop-jumping would be redundant...

James Bluntus wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 10:57am:



Actually James THAT has been happening for a NUMBER of years now. In most cases you need to apply for 10 jobs per fortnight and fill out the details in a 'job seeker diary' that gets handed in at regular intervals. Plus when paperwork is lodged each fortnight, details of 4 jobs applied for during that period MUST be provided. It is up to Centrelink staff to follow up on these 'applications' to ensure all obligations are being met.

Equitist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 5:35pm:


What is demeaning about attending an appointment with a job services provider? I'm at a loss to understand?

And yes I agree that it would be easier if it were an employee's market... but capitalism and labor don't work that way.

James Bluntus wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 10:57am:


This has been in place for years and in fact is an impediment to finding work in many cases.

You need to document your job applications, if you are a skilled professional you need to customise your job application and cover letter fairly comprehensively if you want a chance at the Job but when you are in a mass production situation where you are required to submit 10 or more applications the quality of each suffers and as well you end up applying for employment substantially different from your expectation and skill set just to make up the numbers.

you weaken your genuine opportunities in order to apply for unrealistic targets where the enforced bulk effort actually diminishes you chance of finding work.

You also spend time applying for the repeat adds which you know are just employment companies fishing for numbers on their books and the actual jobs advertised do not in reality exist, you do this just to make up the numbers.

I still think that 5 quality applications for well targeted and achievable positions is much better then being forced to go to 10 or 15 applications which end up all being supported poorly, unachievable or non existent.

Sappho wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 8:03pm:


Surely, Sappho, you cannot be serious!?

Do you not know anybody who has been funnelled past any Job Network parasites!?

I, for one, do! Not only is the whole experience demeaning - but the production line is grossly bureaucratic and inefficient and anything-but tailored to assist individual job seekers.

In short, it is a costly and counter-productive rort that scapegoats the vulnerable unemployed at enormous taxpayer expense!

Under Welfare to Slavery, a friend of mine - a single divorced mum with 2 kids - was on Parenting Payment Single (PPS) when she was forced to go to a local Job Network parasite around the time that her youngest turned 6.

This was despite the fact that she had already been working part time for an average of 15 hours per week for the preceding 2 years - and had been docked PPS reporting to Control-link accordingly!

When she fronted at the offices of the designated Job Network parasites, at her designated 'interview' time, she found herself in a waiting room with a receptionist and over a dozen other people who had apparently been told to present there at the same appointment time.

She had been led to believe that she would be having an actual 'interview' with a particular representative - she even had the man's name. Instead, the receptionist handed her a form and instructed her to take a seat with everyone else, to fill the form out and then to drop it back to the desk, after which her 'interview' attendance obligations would have been met.

When she complained, that she was there to attend an interview, she was told that they were so busy that they couldn't actually offer individual interviews unless and until 'clients' had been on their books for about 6 months.

When she queried, why she had been sent there in the first instance, given that she was already meeting the so-called 'mutual obligation' requirements of 15 hours weekly average paid work anyway, the receptionist said that they couldn't deal with her at all - and that she needed to go back to Control-link to get the misdirection sorted.

Clearly, the Howard Govt's privatised production-line Job Network parasites were a grossly inefficient waste of time and taxpayer money - that resulted in double and triple bureaucratic-handling and paper-shuffling, with nobody actually taking responsibility for assisting job seekers-cum-scapegoats to gain skills and/or secure paid employment.

There can be no doubt that the outcome was a Govt-funded pseudo-privatised white elephant, that was even more ineffective and counter-productive than the defunct CES that the Job Network parasites superceded!

Meantime, the needs and aspirations of some of Australia's most vulnerable and disadvantaged people remain unconscionably abused, scapegoated and neglected!

Equitist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 8:41pm:


You haven't actually addressed my question... What you have done is highlight the ineptitude of centrelink for referring her their in the first place. Centrelink was supposed to recognise her 15hrs per week of work and not refer her on.

What you describe, which is centrelink mismanagement, is also very common... too common even. Maybe, if centrelink was getting the management of referrals and non-referrals correct in the first place... there wouldn't be the process line production that you describe. Maybe there would be enough time to spend with customers in individual interviews.

Not fair to blame Job Services for the mistakes of Centrelink.

My question pertains to those asked to interviews not seminars. It pertains to those who have been unemployed for more than three months, since most people are actually off payments within three months and have little contact with the job services.

The unemployed should`t be allowed to vote at all.  After all, what is the value of the opiion of someone who can`t even get a job?

Quote:


No they didn't. But those who were unemployed and entering training of some kind did receive the $950 student stim payment as well as the education entry payment.

So then the majority of the unemployed missed  out on the $900 to help stimulate the economy.  These would have been the very people that would have needed the money.  There is no mention of the unemployed getting any more money in their benefits, this is from labor or liberal.  Yet I am sure of one thing, the government want something very much from the unemployed.  They want it so badly that people could not even imagine how much they want it.  That thing is the their vote.  Yes they can make a difference on August 21.  If your unemployed send the government a message.  Send a message to the liberals as well,that wont mention anything about a fair go for the unemployed, except to make them travel further to work.  YOU can make a difference.   Why should YOU if your unemployed have to live on the smell of an oily rag?.  Why should YOU vote for them?.  This election send them a message loud and clear.   A fair go for the unemployed.  A vote for not labor, or liberal.  A vote for the Australian Greens.   Isn't it great  that the unemployed vote?