PDA

View Full Version : WINZ and $15 an Hour



pctek
19-12-2010, 07:43 AM
Casual labourers are quitting $15-an-hour jobs claiming they can make almost the same on the dole.

Alpha Recruitment managing director Colin Mathieson said three staff had walked out in recent weeks, saying they would receive just $20 less each week on benefits.

Tradestaff owner Kevin Eder said travel costs involved with getting to and from work could also be factored in.

Work and Income calculations didn't support the fathers' claims.

The agency said a three-child family living in Mangere with two parents on benefits would receive $750 a week. If one of the parents worked 30 hours in a casual $15-an-hour job, they would receive $826, and $923 for working 40 hours.


Er...$15 x 40 = $600. before tax.

Safari
19-12-2010, 08:19 AM
I think what they mean is the total income they receive after the getting the working for families tax credit would be what they quoted.

coldfront
19-12-2010, 09:05 AM
I think the maths involved is a bit more complex than it looks given the other benefit factored in like Accomodation sup and IRD child payments.

I can quite believe it though our own situation has been one of one week we are better off being on the dole than working given we pay out $26 per day on fuel with no alternatives. Every time the price fuel goes up another 7c we got to find another dollar per day. Neither of us work fixed hours neither of us is on a low hourly rate! One of the reasons my wife changed jobs was the cost of travel to work!

One of our seasonal employers struggled to get local staff this year because firstly they now pay minimum pay rate, secondly they removed the Travel Allowance they paid workers who lived beyond the bus pick up area. Your not going to drive 90kms per day for minimum wage when on bad week your only going to be paid for 15 hours work are you?

Cost of travel to work is not factored in by winz when you suddenly realise that the income thats more than the dole is actual less once the cost of getting to work is deducted.

KenESmith
19-12-2010, 11:51 AM
Also one has to factor in PAYE - its cash in hand

qazwsxokmijn
19-12-2010, 12:04 PM
Jesus what sons of you know what....lazy, incompetent morons. My god, they don't deserve to live on this planet if they'd rather have the taxpayers feed their parasitic mouths than working themselves. They really should be denied benefit if this is how they're going to do things.

kahawai chaser
19-12-2010, 12:08 PM
My nephew worked for one of those labour agencies, and sometimes there was no guarantee of work on the day, but still had to arrive at 6.00 am sometimes.

Thebananamonkey
19-12-2010, 12:18 PM
I don't disagree with there being a benefit but even when I've been unemployed for fairly good periods of time I've never used it. That's what saving is for... supportive partners and parents definitely help ease the pain though.

If I were out of work for a properly long period of time I'd have little choice but to go on the dole, but it's something I'd resist until I absolutely needed it.

Apart from the economic factor discussed above, does nobody consider the moral one? If you have the option of work, you should take it. Money shouldn't come into it. $15/hr should be enough if you're clever with how you spend it.

If you've had three or more children and you're both struggling to get by on low wages then I'd suggest you should have thought a bit about economics before having them.

Paul.Cov
19-12-2010, 12:19 PM
ACC levies too.
Then there's the childcare expenses if you go to work.
Or parking expenses.

Something is wrong when welfare pays as well as working.

gary67
19-12-2010, 12:36 PM
If you can't live on what you earn then you need to seriously look at your budgeting skills and maybe not have kids. I don't know many families with zero debt unlike us we owe nobody anything, we operate on the old type of schedule if you can't afford it wait until you can.


We saved like crazy to pay off the mortgage even down to me biking everywhere and even now the car only leaves the garage if there are more than 2 things to do that need the car.

You could call us tight we prefer frugal

coldfront
19-12-2010, 12:39 PM
Apart from the economic factor discussed above, does nobody consider the moral one? If you have the option of work, you should take it. Money shouldn't come into it.

Morals does not pay the bills or the money grabbing from everyone else!!!

Reading the article again I noted the words right at the start "Casual labourers" meaning NO guarentee of work of fixed hours each week.

Then it says "The three, fathers from south Auckland, said they would receive family tax credits and accommodation supplements on top of their benefits."
This bit though "they would receive just $20 less each week on benefits." So if the travel expenses they pay each week is more than $20 I can see their point as well.

Then I noted the claims made not by winz but by the Agency thats lost the staff! they (the 3 that quit) obviously did the maths.

I wonder if the agency could not of considered a travel allowance for the staff on its book or increasing the hourly rate?

Naa thats to easy! Best to run to the media and shout bludge to the world!

coldfront
19-12-2010, 12:50 PM
If you can't live on what you earn then you need to seriously look at your budgeting skills and maybe not have kids. I don't know many families with zero debt unlike us we owe nobody anything, we operate on the old type of schedule if you can't afford it wait until you can.


We saved like crazy to pay off the mortgage even down to me biking everywhere and even now the car only leaves the garage if there are more than 2 things to do that need the car.

You could call us tight we prefer frugal

You know I dont disagree with what you said about budgeting skills! When my Daughter came along unexpectadly it really through things into chaos mode for us. Trying to settle in a new country where the saving were being eaten away at a rapid rate to the point you have to get assistance before you slide into the unescapable pit of debt!

We did it the only debt we have is a mortgage which is better than paying someone else rent!

If there is a way to save money I will attempt to find it but living beyond your means is not in the calculation ever! Our budget is constrained to the worse case scenario of what the social will assist with. Trying to live below that level is asking to a life of debt!

Unfortuanately we have those in society that think having kids when you have no life plan is a plan!

I think though at 35 I was allowed to have at least one child? Even though since then the budget has been on a knife edge.

pctek
19-12-2010, 02:23 PM
Jesus what sons of you know what....lazy, incompetent morons.

Come on. That's a bit harsh. If you had loads of expenses and you had a choice of minimal money versus better money which would you choose?

It's not incompetent, or moronic really, it's simple economics.

Pity there has to be such situations........

pctek
19-12-2010, 02:27 PM
Here we go:

Food on a budget 101:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10695230

Morgenmuffel
19-12-2010, 02:52 PM
I can't even find a job that'll pay $15 where i am, currently have a casual part-time, xmas temp job paying just over $13 of about 10 hours a week, applied for dozens and dozens of jobs got 2 interviews and got the one job, my theory is any future employer will look more favourably on someone who is working, even in a crap job as opposed to someone sitting on their ass.
I am definitely heading in to get the dole after reading that though, as from a very fast read you appear to still get a benefit even if you are working minimal hours like i am, swallow my pride, as we are going backwards very fast financially (in 7 months we haven't paid a cent on the mortgage, only reason we aren't completely broke)

CliveM
19-12-2010, 03:17 PM
my theory is any future employer will look more favourably on someone who is working, even in a crap job as opposed to someone sitting on their ass.

I could not agree more!

In any application for employment you are selling yourself.
You are far more likely to be accepted if you can demonstrate at the very least the ability to turn up on time and do an honest days work.
There is no way I would employ anyone who, by choice, spent their time sitting on the dole rather than doing a low paid job. A lot of people seem to forget that your personal reputation is all important no matter what field of employment you are after in the long term.

The benefit system is there to support people in need and I fully agree with that. However I have no time for those who are too stupid or too lazy to help themselves when they can.

coldfront
19-12-2010, 03:59 PM
There is two ways of looking at this and being in work is the best of the two only the problem is the hassle associated with doing casual work and being on a benefit. Having experianced that situation and not complete unemployment I can tell you that casual work and WINZ is you might as well be on the dole. Not being on a benefit means you are not on their radar!

Better the hourly rate less hours needed to escape the economic need of winz!

qazwsxokmijn
19-12-2010, 04:04 PM
Come on. That's a bit harsh. If you had loads of expenses and you had a choice of minimal money versus better money which would you choose?

It's not incompetent, or moronic really, it's simple economics.

Pity there has to be such situations........
Maybe a bit harsh....but they're expecting us taxpayers to feed them when they are fully able to work. That I find disgusting. The benefit should only be reserved for those disadvantaged by physical and/or mental debilitation or to get someone 'back up his/her feet' so to say. Not to lazy bludgers who think it's alright not to work when you can.

inphinity
19-12-2010, 08:56 PM
All it says to me is the benefit pays far too much.

Greven
19-12-2010, 09:11 PM
If you don't know how to play the system, it is hard to live on the unemployment benefit

coldfront
19-12-2010, 09:12 PM
All it says to me is the benefit pays far too much.

All it says to me is that our minimum wage is to low and our employers (that Agency) is unwilling to pay another dollar or two to make it economical not to fall to the benefit to survive.

I know for one thing if the level of our income goes below a certain level I wont hesitate to go to winz to get some help to avoid financial disaster. Especially if we have cut back so much on our cost of living to be no alternative.

Greven
19-12-2010, 09:22 PM
The biggest problem (as was mentioned by someone earlier) is casual work is too unreliable & unpredictable. You can survive on a steady 40 hour per week minimum wage job, but it gets a lot harder when you can go from 40 hours down to 10 hours with no warning.

coldfront
19-12-2010, 10:38 PM
I always remember this line from someone at winz

"Cant your employer give you more hours"

"erm if they could would I be here talking to you?" was the reply

pctek
20-12-2010, 08:33 AM
The benefit should only be reserved for those disadvantaged by physical and/or mental debilitation

Wait until you or a close relative has experience that situation before condemning them all.

qazwsxokmijn
20-12-2010, 08:42 AM
Wait until you or a close relative has experience that situation before condemning them all.
Wait....I think we may be on a different page. What I get from that article is three people are too lazy to work after figuring out the benefit will only pay them $20 less a week than if they were working. This implies they are fully capable of work, but won't because they'd rather be on the benefit which pays them very slightly less.

Is that what you also got from the article?

coldfront
20-12-2010, 10:13 AM
Wait....I think we may be on a different page. What I get from that article is three people are too lazy to work after figuring out the benefit will only pay them $20 less a week than if they were working. This implies they are fully capable of work, but won't because they'd rather be on the benefit which pays them very slightly less.

Is that what you also got from the article?

What I got from the article was an employer unable to guarentee hours or willing to pay a few dollars more complaining about how they could not retain staff.

I also got from it that the 3 people involved had done the maths and realised that working for that same employer was not economical when the cost to travel to work was deducted. How much they wer paying out in travel to work costs is not known and how much of the story is not been put there to be undertood more clearly.

Any of these stories are never clear cut but many factors clearly get overlooked and the main one here seems to be a disgruntled Employer again.

pctek
20-12-2010, 10:17 AM
I got that WINZ can't multiply.

yes, yes, working for families and all that - perhaps.

Straight 40hrs at $15, nope.

coldfront
20-12-2010, 10:27 AM
I got that WINZ can't multiply.



:clap

Winz fail miserably in calculating individuals travel to work costs as do many employers.

Digby
20-12-2010, 11:58 AM
Yes I think it means that the dole for a married person or one with children it too high.

The minimum wage is what will kill this country.

Every time they put it up, companies close down - Sawmills etc.

In the USA the "richest country" in the world the minimum wage is $8.00 an hour.

Winz need to get better at getting people into jobs.

Snorkbox
20-12-2010, 12:59 PM
Yes I think it means that the dole for a married person or one with children it too high.

The minimum wage is what will kill this country.

Every time they put it up, companies close down - Sawmills etc.

In the USA the "richest country" in the world the minimum wage is $8.00 an hour.

Winz need to get better at getting people into jobs.

And there will be more jobs when you double or triple the population???????????

Cicero
20-12-2010, 01:01 PM
Some say, bludgers are owed a living, just can't see it myself.

The pro bludger relies on the do gooders seeing that there is good in us all, in fact there are those that take up oxygen at our expense.

And for PC's benifit for ths 100th time, nobody on here begrudge the needy getting a hand up.

Digby
20-12-2010, 01:17 PM
And there will be more jobs when you double or triple the population???????????

Yes there will.

They will probably need cars fixing, pc's fixing, electricians, plumbers, hairdressers, teachers for their kids etc etc.

They may also go to a play, or buy a NZ artists song, or buy some NZ art. or they may invent a new product or service and employ some people.

pctek
20-12-2010, 01:28 PM
Yes there will.

They will probably need cars fixing, pc's fixing, electricians, plumbers, hairdressers, teachers for their kids etc etc.
.

Nope. Doesn't work now.

1101
20-12-2010, 02:12 PM
Yes I think it means that the dole for a married person or one with children it too high.


+1
Something is very wrong when some unemployed get paid more than many with real jobs !!!

Casual labor should not be optional for those on the dole. Even if the difference has to be made up by welfare. It gets them out of the house at least & may force them to get a bit motivated: have to get up at 6am like the rest of us.

Digby
20-12-2010, 03:21 PM
I read that in the UK that are talking about getting EVERY person on the dole to turn up each day to the dole office and do some voluntary work.

The theory is that if they have to do that
1) they will look for a real job
2) if they are ripping the system off and doing casual jobs under the table they will go off the dole.
3) it will give others a work ethic (getting up each day) and a sense of worth.

KarameaDave
20-12-2010, 07:45 PM
Unlike Digby I feel we need to increase the minimum wage.
Otherwise we will never catch up with Australia.
Employers in this country are the ones on the pigs' back, not beneficiaries.
Welcome to the real world, boys!

Metla
20-12-2010, 08:16 PM
Employers in this country are the ones on the pigs' back, not beneficiaries.
Welcome to the real world, boys!

Pffft, go start a business and learn a few lessons, They are burdened with the beneficiary curse just like the rest of the tax paying population.

KarameaDave
20-12-2010, 09:07 PM
Pffft, go start a business and learn a few lessons, They are burdened with the beneficiary curse just like the rest of the tax paying population.

Pffft, right back at you, mate. I have had several successful businesses, how 'bout you?

Metla
20-12-2010, 10:01 PM
Pffft, right back at you, mate. I have had several successful businesses, how 'bout you?

LMFAO.

Touche.

coldfront
20-12-2010, 10:11 PM
Unlike Digby I feel we need to increase the minimum wage.
Otherwise we will never catch up with Australia.
Employers in this country are the ones on the pigs' back, not beneficiaries.
Welcome to the real world, boys!

Got a few examples of that where I know for a fact employers in my locale back in 1996 paid 50% more than minimum wage with a travel allowance perk! These same big employers are now paying minimum wage and complaining they can not retain staff and use it as an excuse to exploit the open holiday work visa schemes which were set up about the same time wages started to close up the minimum wage gap.

Start putting restrictions back on those backpacker working holiday schemes, you know when somehing is not right when 700 seasonal jobs are taken up by 500 temporary residents who do not pay tax because they can claim it all back.

As for the Voluntary line of Digbys, Haha define voluntary? Skilled or Unskilled roles? I know from experiance that being in a skilled Voluntary roll as far as WINZ is concerned does not count as making an effort. More than once during a time of unemployment I had to arse kiss to retain payments of benefit because I missed an appointment with our case manager because I was on a call out or on a training course.

Catch 22 people expect that service to come little realising it is manned by volunteers who give up work, free time or are unemployed and get no reward for doing so. Its hard to get volunteers to do what they do yet many of the unemployed are probably the best suited to the roll. Yet the sytem snubs that effort made. Last week I put in 15 hours of free service, this week none so far lucky me they were days I did not lose work over either yet I could have done so easily.

But if I said I was unemployed the automatic assumption is someone who is to lazy to get off their butts!

Thats off the point whats needed is to clamp down on WHVs being issued and used and then getting employers to look after retaining staff instead of paying peanuts! Because that peanut rate is equal to that of claiming the benefit! The benefit is enough to cover basic costs unless worked well by a few individuals.

pctek
21-12-2010, 08:05 AM
The theory is that if they have to do that
1) they will look for a real job
2) if they are ripping the system off and doing casual jobs under the table they will go off the dole.
3) it will give others a work ethic (getting up each day) and a sense of worth.

Yes the theory is that every person receiving a benefit does so because they prefer it to working.

The reality is that while there are some that applies to, the majority are receiving it because there is unemployment. meaning a lack of jobs.

So how does that create jobs?

And you know WINZ count the Unemployed as those on the dole, not working any hours at all.
If you work, say 10 hours, and get topped up by WINZ, you aren't counted.
Nor are you counted if registered for job seeking but not receiving dole - like if your partner works.

So the unemployment figures are higher than reported. But we mustn't frighten anyone with that news so we'll fudge the figures.....

coldfront
21-12-2010, 11:45 AM
If you work, say 10 hours, and get topped up by WINZ, you aren't counted.


But you are harrassed by WINZ to get enough hours and money in per week to not be on the dole.

30 hours is the magic number for a couple 15 hours for a single! And the magic figure they stop the dole payments is $441.48 for a couple with or without children. If you clever you can see a mismatch of maths there ;)