WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

Forums › Off topic › WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

458 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141

#1373817 25-Aug-2015 13:13

DizzyD:
sir1963:

And whats worse, the social workers we expect to work with these people are paid crap wages.

And what are these social workers doing to up-skill themselves, and in turn obtain better paid jobs?

A lot.

Many social workers do the job because they want to make a difference. However, with low levels of funding, caseloads are so high and the stress so bad that it affects health, that the turnover in the sector is very high. Hence the job is on the long term skills list for immigration. That's a very effective way of keeping wages down in NZ - bring in cheap foreigners.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1373819 25-Aug-2015 13:16

The nearest Winz (and predecessors) office to me (for the last 25 years) is in Linwood, Chch.
In 1990, when I moved here, it was a very small office in a block of shops on the corner of Linwood Ave and Cashel St. By mid 1990s, they'd demolished the shops and build a new Winz office building replacing the entire strip of shops on the corner. By 2005, they'd abandoned those offices because they were too small, and built a large two-story building with parking for 50-100 cars.

Something's seriously wrong here (IMO) - the Admin departments in almost every private business seem to have had a similar resize - but in the other direction usually. Unemployment has been up and down over that time period (very low in Chch now). I concede that I've never actually been inside the building to see what goes on.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373822 25-Aug-2015 13:18

networkn:
[
ANYONE with an attitude of "I won't work because I can earn almost as much on a benefit" has NO right to a benefit. There is NO excuse for such an attitude.

Yes there are sad cases of things going wrong on benefits of honest and genuine people, just as there are with any large organization filled with people. It happens in the commercial sector and in fact every walk of life. So what?

Yeah I guess the Sole parent with three children that says no to a job because after paying transport to the minimum pay job and having to pay child care she will be $160 + per week worse off doesn't have a right to
a benefit and her children should have a warm dry home and food to eat.

Oh just for the record it is monumentally hard to get employers to accept beneficiaries for employment.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1373826 25-Aug-2015 13:22

MikeB4:
networkn:
[
ANYONE with an attitude of "I won't work because I can earn almost as much on a benefit" has NO right to a benefit. There is NO excuse for such an attitude.

Yes there are sad cases of things going wrong on benefits of honest and genuine people, just as there are with any large organization filled with people. It happens in the commercial sector and in fact every walk of life. So what?

Yeah I guess the Sole parent with three children that says no to a job because after paying transport to the minimum pay job and having to pay child care she will be $160 + per week worse off doesn't have a right to
a benefit and her children should have a warm dry home and food to eat.

Oh just for the record it is monumentally hard to get employers to accept beneficiaries for employment.

Another strawman.
Really hard to contribute here if people are just responding and setting up strawmen

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373828 25-Aug-2015 13:23

Fred99: The nearest Winz (and predecessors) office to me (for the last 25 years) is in Linwood, Chch.
In 1990, when I moved here, it was a very small office in a block of shops on the corner of Linwood Ave and Cashel St. By mid 1990s, they'd demolished the shops and build a new Winz office building replacing the entire strip of shops on the corner. By 2005, they'd abandoned those offices because they were too small, and built a large two-story building with parking for 50-100 cars.

Something's seriously wrong here (IMO) - the Admin departments in almost every private business seem to have had a similar resize - but in the other direction usually. Unemployment has been up and down over that time period (very low in Chch now). I concede that I've never actually been inside the building to see what goes on.

If you look at those large (pre computer everything done by hand) offices they have been replaced with much, much smaller offices that also have the ex Employment services division of DOL domiciled in them. In affect they have considerably
reduced the size of the operation at a district level.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373830 25-Aug-2015 13:24

DizzyD:
MikeB4:
networkn:
[
ANYONE with an attitude of "I won't work because I can earn almost as much on a benefit" has NO right to a benefit. There is NO excuse for such an attitude.

Yes there are sad cases of things going wrong on benefits of honest and genuine people, just as there are with any large organization filled with people. It happens in the commercial sector and in fact every walk of life. So what?

Yeah I guess the Sole parent with three children that says no to a job because after paying transport to the minimum pay job and having to pay child care she will be $160 + per week worse off doesn't have a right to
a benefit and her children should have a warm dry home and food to eat.

Oh just for the record it is monumentally hard to get employers to accept beneficiaries for employment.

Another strawman.
Really hard to contribute here if people are just responding and setting up strawmen

It is a scenario based on fact.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1373832 25-Aug-2015 13:26

MikeB4:
DizzyD:
MikeB4:
networkn:
[
ANYONE with an attitude of "I won't work because I can earn almost as much on a benefit" has NO right to a benefit. There is NO excuse for such an attitude.

Yes there are sad cases of things going wrong on benefits of honest and genuine people, just as there are with any large organization filled with people. It happens in the commercial sector and in fact every walk of life. So what?

Yeah I guess the Sole parent with three children that says no to a job because after paying transport to the minimum pay job and having to pay child care she will be $160 + per week worse off doesn't have a right to
a benefit and her children should have a warm dry home and food to eat.

Oh just for the record it is monumentally hard to get employers to accept beneficiaries for employment.

Another strawman.
Really hard to contribute here if people are just responding and setting up strawmen

It is a scenario based on fact.

No its not.
Networkn's post was referring to a bad attitude.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1373834 25-Aug-2015 13:27

jmh:
DizzyD:
sir1963:

And whats worse, the social workers we expect to work with these people are paid crap wages.

And what are these social workers doing to up-skill themselves, and in turn obtain better paid jobs?

Many social workers do the job because they want to make a difference. However, with low levels of funding, caseloads are so high and the stress so bad that it affects health, that the turnover in the sector is very high. Hence the job is on the long term skills list for immigration. That's a very effective way of keeping wages down in NZ - bring in cheap foreigners.

Yep, it certainly works that way for other occupations on the list, like vets, surgeons, GPs, ICT Project Managers, electricians, ship captains, specialist physicians, obstetricians, chartered engineers etc etc. Those guys are on a pittance!

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373836 25-Aug-2015 13:32

DizzyD:
No its not.
Networkn's post was referring to a bad attitude.

wow your intuition into what I know is outstanding.

If you are slightly interested in why I say it's a scenario based on fact PM me and I may tell you.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#1373841 25-Aug-2015 13:35

Sideface:
networkn:
bazzer:
networkn: Pension, those people have payed taxes all their lives and are entitled to it. I think it should be partially asset tested, but it is what it is.

It seems to me that these two statements would be contradictory. If we accept that those that have paid taxes all their life are entitled to it, then it doesn't take much of a leap to think that those with the most assets may have paid the most in tax during their life. Why aren't they entitled to it?

Yup I understand, hence I said partially tested. Not all people who make lots of money pay lots of tax. I'd like to think if I had enough money subsequent to retirement I'd opt to donate my pension to charity.

Some of the wealthiest people and companies pay remarkably little tax - quite legally, because of loopholes in the tax system which they can afford to exploit.

And the same people would presumably use loopholes to avoid asset testing.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373842 25-Aug-2015 13:37

MikeB4:
networkn:
[
ANYONE with an attitude of "I won't work because I can earn almost as much on a benefit" has NO right to a benefit. There is NO excuse for such an attitude.

Yes there are sad cases of things going wrong on benefits of honest and genuine people, just as there are with any large organization filled with people. It happens in the commercial sector and in fact every walk of life. So what?

Yeah I guess the Sole parent with three children that says no to a job because after paying transport to the minimum pay job and having to pay child care she will be $160 + per week worse off doesn't have a right to
a benefit and her children should have a warm dry home and food to eat.

Oh just for the record it is monumentally hard to get employers to accept beneficiaries for employment.

Oh don't be so melodramatic. Good Grief man! I didn't say every person had to take EVERY job regardless of circumstances, I said that if you can work you should work. Obviously if you are going to be significantly worse off and have a young family, then common sense applies right?
(I think with nearly 10K of posts you will have seen I am prone to common sense and should be given the benefit of the doubt here). Chances are that someone who starts work even if they are slightly worse off, will not be worse off in the long term.

Working has benefits above financial. If you have known someone to be unemployeed for a long period of time, you will no doubt have seen unfavourable changes to their personality, confidence, thought processes etc.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#1373844 25-Aug-2015 13:39

Technically, yes. Pragmatically, no.

The government gives beneficiaries money (it's not earned) and they give some of that money back via various taxes.

Even with part time work, beneficiaries will still be net takers from the tax system.

sir1963:

But interestingly enough, people on benefits pay taxes.

Mike

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373847 25-Aug-2015 13:45

DizzyD:
MikeB4:
DizzyD:
MikeB4:
networkn:
[
ANYONE with an attitude of "I won't work because I can earn almost as much on a benefit" has NO right to a benefit. There is NO excuse for such an attitude.

Yes there are sad cases of things going wrong on benefits of honest and genuine people, just as there are with any large organization filled with people. It happens in the commercial sector and in fact every walk of life. So what?

Yeah I guess the Sole parent with three children that says no to a job because after paying transport to the minimum pay job and having to pay child care she will be $160 + per week worse off doesn't have a right to
a benefit and her children should have a warm dry home and food to eat.

Oh just for the record it is monumentally hard to get employers to accept beneficiaries for employment.

Another strawman.
Really hard to contribute here if people are just responding and setting up strawmen

It is a scenario based on fact.

No its not.
Networkn's post was referring to a bad attitude.

How do you measure 'bad attitude'? One can't deny an applicant a benefit solely for that as it's not quantifiable. (Unless perhaps we convene a panel of 'tax payers' to make this assessment??!!).

Hence Mike's supposed 'straw man' is entirely relevant: there will be many reasons why a beneficiary may be not keen or unwilling to take on an offer of employment. Some of these will be legitimate. Personally, I'd understand a beneficiary not taking on employment if it leaves them in a substantively worse financial position. The benefit system needs to be so designed that there is a financial incentive to taking on employment (a carrot), rather than just resorting to having one's support cut for refusing to take on employment (the stick).

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1373852 25-Aug-2015 13:49

jonathan18:

How do you measure 'bad attitude'? One can't deny an applicant a benefit solely for that as it's not quantifiable. (Unless perhaps we convene a panel of 'tax payers' to make this assessment??!!).

Hence Mike's supposed 'straw man' is entirely relevant: there will be many reasons why a beneficiary may be not keen or unwilling to take on an offer of employment. Some of these will be legitimate. Personally, I'd understand a beneficiary not taking on employment if it leaves them in a substantively worse financial position. The benefit system needs to be so designed that there is a financial incentive to taking on employment (a carrot), rather than just resorting to having one's support cut for refusing to take on employment (the stick).

If someone says, and I quote "I won't work because I can earn almost as much on a benefit"! Well thats a bad attitude. No need for the "Yeah I guess the Sole parent... " dribble

Mike's response, like your previous response to me earlier, are both nicely wrapped strawmen.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373854 25-Aug-2015 13:56

DizzyD:
If someone says, and I quote "I won't work because I can earn almost as much on a benefit"! Well thats a bad attitude. No need for the "Yeah I guess the Sole parent... " dribble

Mike's response, like your previous response to me earlier, are both nicely wrapped strawmen.

So instead of asking why like I invited you respond thus.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13