An Comhchoiste um Poist, Coimirce Shóisialach agus
Oideachas
Athbhreithniú ar stádas oibrithe ócáideacha
in Éirinn
Bealtaine 2012
___________________________
Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and
Education
A review of the status of casual workers in
Ireland
May 2012
31JSPE006
Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education
A review of the status of casual workers in Ireland
Table of contents:
Decision of the Joint Committee
2
Introduction
3
1: Rationale for research
5
2: Part-time Workers
2.1: Background to Unemployment Benefit and Assistance Schemes for
Part Time Workers
2.2: Part-time workers in Ireland
2.3: Current criteria for part-time workers eligible for social welfare payment
2.4: Recognition of an outdated system
2.5: Need for work activation on a full time or part-time basis
2.6: International Comparisons – Casual/Part-time workers
6
6
10
13
16
18
3: Methodology
21
4: Report from key stakeholders
21
5: Recommendations and Conclusion
22
6: Sources
34
7: Appendices
A: CSO Live Register Figures March 2012
B: CSO QNHS Quarter 4 2011
C: Dáil Question regarding „Review of the application of the Unemployment
benefit and assistance schemes conditions to workers who are not employed
on a full time basis‟ 2007 Report
D: Dáil Question regarding recipients of Jobseeker‟s Benefit
E: Oireachtas Committee Debate Wednesday 21st September 2011
F: Oireachtas Committee Debate Wednesday 21st March 2012
G: Written Response to PQ 25 April 2012 on changes to Jobseekers payments
Graphs:
2.1:
2.2:
2.3:
2.4:
Number of people on Live Register 2008- 2012
Number of part-time workers in Ireland 2008 – 2011
Number of part-time workers on Live Register 2008 – 2012
Claim duration of part-time workers 2012
38
39
40
41
43
48
54
7
8
9
10
Tables:
4.1: Main points raised by stakeholders
5.1: New hours based system versus days based system
24
26
1
Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and
Education
A review of the status of casual workers in Ireland
The Joint Committee at its meeting of 25 April 2012 considered the following
report prepared by Deputy Anthony Lawlor on behalf of the Committee on a
review of the status of casual workers in Ireland.
The report highlights inconsistencies in the system of social welfare payments
to part–time workers and makes recommendations aimed at improving
opportunities for people to return to work.
The Chairman and Members of the Committee commended Deputy Lawlor and
thanked him for the extensive work done in preparing this comprehensive
report on behalf of the Committee.
The Chairman noted his hope that the report would make a positive
contribution to improving policy on assisting people with employment
opportunities. In particular improvements suggested in the report have the
potential to provide the flexibility needed by both workers and employers to
incentivise people to re-enter the workforce and to fully realise the potential of
part-time work as a stepping stone to full employment.
The Joint Committee agreed that this report be laid before both Houses of the
Oireachtas and that a copy of the report be sent to the Minister for Social
Protection.
Damien English TD
Chairman
9 May 2012
2
Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and
Education
A review of the status of casual workers in Ireland
Introduction
Ireland‟s unemployment benefit system, as it currently exists, is not
accommodating of the increasing number of part-time workers in our labour
force. I firmly believe that this needs to be changed if there is to be a fair and
equitable system in place. Essentially this report does not provide any new
information that is not in the public domain already. Rather it re-focuses our
attention on the current inequalities with regard to social welfare payments to
part-time workers, and the importance of urgently implementing new
guidelines to improve the system. The primary purpose of this report is to
condense the current available information into an up to date analysis of the
present situation taking into account changes to the labour market since
2008. The analysis and recommendations within this report aim to incentivize
people to re-enter the workforce and to encourage companies to hire parttime workers. I believe that part-time work should be regarded as a stepping
stone to full time employment and every support should be offered to
individuals to return to work, on whatever basis.
Recent Live Register figures indicate an increase in the number of part-time
workers. It is therefore clear that reforms are now necessary to put part-time
workers on somewhat equal footing with other recipients of social welfare
payments. Yet this has to be undertaken in a revenue neutral manner. In
2006 the Department of Social Protection issued recommendations in a report
entitled a “Review of the Application of the Unemployment Benefit and
Assistance Schemes Conditions to Workers who are not employed on a FullTime Basis”1. It seems incredulous that six years later, it is only now that the
1
Prepared as an internal programme expenditure review by the then Department Social and Family Affairs
and published by the Government
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/CorporatePublications/Finance/exp_rev/Documents/ua_ub_expend_review.
pdf
3
Department is in the process of considering implementing these
recommendations. In light of the current unemployment crisis, these
recommendations should have been addressed when Ireland was experiencing
full employment. It would appear that there has been a consistent failure to
enact any effective change with regard to part-time workers until now. While
I appreciate the difficulties involved in overhauling this system, I welcome the
promise by the Department that changes are due to come into force in Budget
2013. However by publishing this report I again impress upon the Department
the importance of fulfilling this promise and ensuring that real reforms are
expeditiously put in place to move toward a more fair and equal system.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks to Elizabeth
Doherty (George Washington University) and Dr Eimear O‟Leary (PhD) for
their assistance in researching and writing this report. Gratitude is offered to
the representatives from IBEC, INOU, ICTU and Caremark for taking the time
to discuss and outline their views on this matter. Finally I wish to thank the
members and staff of the Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and
Education for allowing this report to be compiled and presented.
Anthony Lawlor TD
4
1: Rationale for research
Even before the economic collapse in Ireland occurred, part-time workers
were a prevalent feature of the Irish workforce. Many people engaging in
part-time work did so voluntarily for a variety of issues i.e. working parents
with children; people with disabilities unable to work full time etc. Others
were required to work part-time due to the nature of their employment. One
profession which stands out in this regard is carers. Indeed the basis for this
research paper was founded on a discussion with the Managing Director of a
private carers‟ company who highlighted the difficulties he encountered
recruiting staff. Ultimately, carers are often only required for a couple of hours
each day to help an elderly or disabled person. Therefore, many carers are
engaged in employment, in some cases, for a maximum of 15 hours per week.
Yet because this work is undertaken each day they are ineligible to apply for
social welfare benefits to subsidise their income under the current system. As
a result, many carers offered positions by the aforementioned company are
reluctant to work such few hours per week as their income cannot be
subsidised elsewhere.
As a result of the current economic recession more and more people have
been forced involuntarily into part-time work. Often this is the only cost
saving measure available to employers who do not want to fully terminate
their employees‟ position. Alternatively many people who are now
unemployed have been offered work on a part-time basis but are reluctant to
accept such job offers for fear of losing a social welfare payment. Therefore,
an emphasis now needs to be placed on reforming the Jobseeker‟s payments
(Benefit / Allowance) system to deal effectively with part-time workers.2
2
According to the Protection of Employees (Part Time Work) Act of 2001 and for the purposes of this
report, “part-time worker” in Ireland is defined as “an employee whose normal hours of work are less than
the normal hours of work of an employee who is a comparable employee in relation to him or her”.
5
2: Part-time Workers
2.1: Background to Unemployment Benefit and Assistance
Schemes for Part-time Workers
Unemployment benefit in Ireland pre dates the foundation of an independent
Irish State. Under the National Insurance Act 1911 introduced by Lloyd
George, social welfare benefit was to be paid to persons who involuntarily
found themselves unemployed in return for weekly social insurance
contributions (Kenny 2008). Conditionality for Unemployment Benefit has
always been predicated on the recipient being available for full time
employment regardless of personal choice or circumstances. However, it has
been recognised that the basis for this condition “dates back to a time when
only full-time employment was available and where the take up of flexible
employment opportunities, had they been available, would not have been an
option for the majority of workers” (2006 Report: Review of the Application of
the Unemployment Benefit and Assistance Schemes Conditions to Workers
who are not employed on a Full-Time Basis
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/CorporatePublications/Finance/exp_rev/Docu
ments/ua_ub_expend_review.pdf). Clearly Ireland has changed substantially
in the past 100 years yet 21st century standards and altered work patterns
have not been reflected in social welfare payments to part-time workers.
2.2: Part-time Workers in Ireland
The pattern of traditional employment in Ireland has changed substantially
since the downturn in the economy of 2008 with an increase in the number of
6
atypical workers3. Unemployment is now a blight on Irish society with the Live
Register figures doubling from March 2008 to March 2012.
Graph 2.1 Numbers on the Live Register 2008-2012
Persons on Live Register
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Mar-08
Mar-09
Mar-10
Mar-11
Mar-12
Source: CSO –Live Register
The number of people on the Live Register stood at 434,054 in March 2012
(CSO). However this does not necessarily measure unemployment levels in
the state because the Live Register includes part-time (those who work up to
three days a week), seasonal and casual workers who are entitled to
Jobseeker‟s payments. Quarter 4 of the 2011 Quarterly National Household
Survey (QNHS) found that 302,000 people are currently unemployed in the
state. The Live Register is most useful in terms of the present research as it
identifies the number of part-time workers who are currently claiming
Jobseeker‟s payments.
An analysis of the CSO QNHS from 2008 to 2011 identifies the number of
people who currently work part-time in Ireland, either by choice or
involuntarily (See Graph 2.2). The overall figure (424,800) remains
somewhat stable over this period with a 7% increase (31,700 persons) in the
3
Atypical workers refer to part-time (defined hours), casual (undefined and varied hours), seasonal
(depending on demand for industry), systematic workers (hours involuntarily reduced), job-sharing and week
on/week off
7
numbers employed in part-time work. However, the manner in which these
people consider themselves part-time workers has changed somewhat.
According to the QNHS individuals are classified as either „Part-Time NOT
Underemployed‟ or „Part-Time Underemployed‟. According to the CSO “a
respondent who works in a part-time job is classified as 'underemployed' if
he/she is looking and available for another job and has explicitly stated that
the hours worked currently are 'too few'”. Graph 2.2 clearly indicates how
since December 2008 part-time workers are increasingly self-classifying as
„Part-Time Underemployed‟ which leads one to conclude that part-time work is
progressively becoming involuntary with workers seeking more hours.
Graph 2.2: Part-time workers in Ireland 2008-2011
Source: CSO - QNHS
As is abundantly clear from Graph 2.3 the number of part-time workers
availing of Jobseeker‟s payments has risen sharply since the downturn in the
economy with a 75% increase. The QNHS for Quarter 4 of 2011 found that
141,500 people were classified as „Part-Time Underemployed‟ in December
2011 yet CSO figures for the same month found that 86,815 casual and parttime workers were on the Liver Register. Therefore, almost 55,000 part-time
workers who are available for work and consider their current employment
situation unsatisfactory are not in receipt of a Jobseeker‟s payment. There
may be a number of reasonable explanations behind why these individuals are
not in receipt of social welfare payments, but it is prudent to assume that a
8
number of these people are unable to receive a Jobseeker‟s payment because
they currently work part-time more than three days per week. Yet, in many
of these cases their personal income may still warrant state support because
of the low level of hours worked. Clearly as the number of people
involuntarily working part-time has increased a review of the current system is
required to respond to the needs of this changing workforce. The latest CSO
Live Register figures indicate that in the past six months the number of casual
and part-time workers has consistently increased from 85,029 in October
2011 to 88,716 in March 2012. This group now represents 20.4% of the total
Live Register and has seen a 3% increase in 2012 already. Clearly, it is now
time to deal effectively with this matter.
Graph 2.3: Part-time workers on Live Register 2008-2012
Source: CSO – Live Register
According figures provided by the Department of Social Protection, in January
2012, 84,004 part-time workers were in receipt of either Jobseeker‟s Benefit
or Allowance. 27% (10,985) of the total recipients of Jobseeker‟s Benefit
(41,256) were claiming this payment for between one and two years. This
statistic drops to 4% after two years. The decrease could be in part due to
claimants applying for Jobseeker‟s Allowance after their Jobseeker‟s Benefit
runs out or finding employment. Of all the individuals on Jobseeker‟s
Allowance (42,748), 29% (12,211) of claimants receive this benefit for one to
two years; after two years, this number drops to 19%. This 10% decrease
could be explained by individuals obtaining full-time employment after two
9
years, indicating that part-time employment can act as a stepping stone to
full-time work. Additionally, this decrease could be attributed to part-time
workers no longer qualifying for Jobseeker‟s Allowance or Benefit because of
working in excess of three days. The next highest claim duration of
Jobseeker‟s Benefit or Allowance for part-time workers is between 3 and 6
months, at 18% of all recipients (15,499) and similarly only 18% (15,757) of
all part time workers receive either payment for more than two years. These
figures highlight the fact that even at a time when unemployment is at alltime high, part-time workers do not necessarily remain on a social welfare
payment for long durations (see Graph 2.4).
Graph 2.4: Claim duration of part-time workers 2012
Duration of part time claim
35
30
25
%
20
JA
15
JB
10
Total
5
0
0-3 mts 3-6 mts 6-9 mts
9-12
mts
1-2 yrs 2-3 yrs >3 yrs
Source: Department of Social Protection
2.3: Current criteria for part-time workers eligible for social
welfare payment
Under the current social welfare system in Ireland, those who are over the age
of 18 and out of work can qualify for either Jobseeker‟s Benefit or Jobseeker‟s
Allowance. Both Jobseeker‟s payments are paid by the Department of Social
Protection, and to qualify for either, the individual must be unemployed,
capable of work, and genuinely seeking employment. The principle difference
between the two benefit schemes is that while Jobseeker‟s Benefit is generally
10
a flat rate payment for anyone who qualifies, Jobseeker‟s Allowance is meanstested. If an individual does not qualify for Jobseeker‟s Benefit or has used up
all of their entitlement to Jobseeker‟s Benefit, he or she may qualify for
Jobseeker‟s Allowance instead.
To qualify for Jobseeker‟s Benefit, an individual must have paid enough Social
Insurance (PRSI) contributions, be capable of work, and show that they are
genuinely seeking new employment. Individuals who are receiving
Jobseeker‟s Benefit will be called by the Department of Social Protection from
time to time for an interview to prove that they are meeting the GSW
(Genuinely Seeking Work) requirements. If officials from the Department
conclude that an individual is not meeting the Department‟s requirements for
seeking out new employment, Jobseeker‟s Benefit can be stopped. An
individual can be considered unavailable for work and not qualify for
Jobseeker‟s Benefit if he or she puts restrictions on the nature of the work
available, hours of work, the rate of pay, or the location of the employment.
One would also not be qualified to receive Jobseeker‟s Benefit if he or she left
work voluntarily, lost a job due to misconduct, or refused an offer of suitable
employment. Presently, the primary requirement for Jobseeker‟s Benefit and
the one most relevant to this report is the need for the individual to be fully
unemployed for at least three days out of six. An individual could however
work on Sunday; technically working four days out of six, and still qualify for
Jobseeker‟s Benefit. However, Budget 2012 states that from July 2012 an
individual, in order to be entitled to either Jobseeker‟s Benefit, can now only
work three days out of five days. Sunday will now also count as part of a
workweek with the change coming into effect in January of 2013.
Currently, Jobseeker‟s Allowance carries many of the same qualification
requirements as Jobseeker‟s Benefit. The applicant must be unemployed,
available for and capable of work, and must be able to show that they are
genuinely seeking employment.
However, unlike Jobseeker‟s Benefit,
applicants for Jobseeker‟s Allowance must pass a means test as well as the
Habitual Residence Condition. In order to qualify for Jobseeker‟s Allowance,
an individual must be unemployed; however, there are some circumstances in
which one can do some work and still receive benefits. Most importantly,
11
one‟s means must show to be below a certain level to qualify for Jobseeker‟s
Allowance. Many who are unemployed seek Jobseeker‟s Allowance when they
do not qualify for Jobseeker‟s Benefit or have used up all their entitlement to
Jobseeker‟s Benefit. The new Budgetary rules which are coming into force in
July 2012 with regard to the number of days worked does not apply to this
means tested payment (see Appendix G).
Part-Time Workers Component
Currently, a Jobseeker‟s payment is only calculated in terms of days worked in
a week. Any day where an individual spends any amount of time engaged in
employment or self-employment counts as a full day worked, and one cannot
collect any payment for that day. This essentially means that even if an
individual only spends one hour working in a day, that day counts as a
workday and is deducted from any Jobseeker‟s payment for that day. For
example, if a person works for 10 hours per week, and the employment is
distributed over five days, totalling two hours per day, the individual cannot
receive any social welfare payments, since they are employed for more than
three days. However, if another individual also works for 10 hours per week,
but the employment is distributed between two days, totalling five hours per
day, that individual is entitled to social welfare payments, since they are still
technically employed for only two days out of five. Therefore, the main issue
this report focuses on is the concept that two individuals can work for the
same number of hours in a week, but based on how the hours are distributed
throughout the week, only one may be entitled to any form of social welfare
payment.
The current system does contain a special provision pertaining to casual or
part-time workers. If a claimant is engaged in subsidiary employment along
with any part-time work, the individual may still be eligible for the Jobseeker‟s
payment. For the individual to still qualify for social welfare payments, the
subsidiary employment must satisfy several conditions. The occupation must
have been followed by the individual in addition to his or her usual
employment, the occupation must have been followed by the individual
outside the ordinary working hours of his or her usual employment, and either
12
the profit from the occupation does not exceed €12.70 per day, or at least 117
employment contributions must have been paid in respect to the individual in
the last three years or the last three contribution years immediately prior to
the time of the claim. In most cases, if these conditions are met and both
employments were carried out concurrently for a period of six months prior to
the claim, one occupation can be considered “subsidiary”, and the individual
can still engage in part-time work and satisfy the unemployment condition for
Jobseeker‟s payments. For example with respect to those individuals involved
in agriculture, farmers who hold other full-time employment can claim their
farming as a form of subsidiary employment. With respect to employment
shifts where the individual is required to work continuously from one day into
another, special rules apply in order to determine which day is treated as a
day of employment and which is to be treated as the day of unemployment.
The day on which the shorter number of hours is worked is generally regarded
as the day of unemployment, while the other day is treated as a day of
employment, where a Jobseeker‟s payment cannot be paid. The exception to
this rule comes into effect when one of the days in question is a Sunday. If an
individual‟s shift starts on a Saturday and extends into Sunday, Saturday will
always be considered the day of employment instead of the Sunday. If the
shift starts on Sunday and extends into Monday, Monday will be considered
the day of employment. However, this exception will no longer apply
beginning in January 2013 with the introduction of Sunday as an applicable
workday in the Budget 2012 changes.
It is also important to note that a Part Time Job Incentive Scheme currently
exists which allows long term unemployed people to work and get paid for less
than 24 hours per week and continue to receive a special weekly allowance (to
the value of €119 for a single person) instead of their Jobseeker's payment.
This incentive was introduced during Ireland's previous recession in 1986. In
order to be eligible for the scheme, one must be in receipt of Jobseekers
Allowance for 15 months or more and commit to the position for at least two
months. This scheme can run for one year, with the option to extend it.
Whilst on the scheme, recipients can continue to hold a medical card and, if
working more than 19 hours per week, may be entitled to the Family Income
Supplement.
13
2.4: Recognition of an outdated system
In 2006 the Department of Social Protection recognised the then changing
work pattern and commissioned research to be undertaken to explore ways to
effectively deal with an increase in atypical workers. The „Review of the
Application of the Unemployment Benefit and Assistance Schemes conditions
to workers who are not employed on a full time basis‟ examined the
application of the unemployment payment schemes conditions to workers who
are not employed on a full time basis. This report made a number of
recommendations which, if implemented, would have brought Ireland into line
with current day realities in modern Ireland. Among others, these
recommendations included:

Using a period of 5 days in 7, including Sundays (this was implemented
in Budget 2012)

Compensation to be capped for part-time workers at three fifths of the
weekly rate

Instead of the 3 in 6 day rule, a loss of 40% employment (or 2 days)
would be necessary at the start of a claim. All other losses would then
be determined in steps of 10%
In response to a Dáil Question (No. 23617/11) of 14th September 2011
enquiring about the implementation of these recommendations, Minister Joan
Burton replied that:
The review made a number of recommendations which are under active
consideration within the Department. These considerations are taking place
in the context of the „Report on the desirability and feasibility of introducing
a single social assistance payment for people of working age‟, the current
economic situation, and the considerable administrative and IT change that
implementation of the recommendations would require.
The Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education has
recently been briefed on two occasions in relation to casual/part-time workers
by the Department of Social Protection, in September 2011 and March 2012
(See Appendices E&F). On both these occasions, the officials agreed that the
current system is outdated and that a move towards an hours based system
would be most preferable. They gave details of anomalies within the present
14
system and its unfairness in certain circumstances. Yet, they consistently
highlighted the administrative and systematic difficulties which such a change
would cause. The Departmental officials also referred to the abovementioned
2006 report. They explained how when it was published, the numbers on the
Live Register were significantly lower and the sudden increase since 2008 has
impacted upon the implementation of the recommendations. During both
briefing meetings, it was pointed out by Committee members that it is
unacceptable that there was such a delay in dealing with the
recommendations of the report. Members were assured that a review of the
„review‟ is currently taking place by a departmental inter disciplinary
committee and it is hoped that the recommendations will be included in
Budget 2013.
The Employment Taskforce chaired by Wim Kok, (established following the
European Council conclusions in March 2003) in its report “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs:
Creating More Employment in Europe” clearly recognised the changing
European workforce and the need for reform. The report identified that
“Labour markets must be made more flexible while providing workers
with appropriate levels of security. Flexibility is not just in the interest
of employers; it also serves the interest of workers, helping them to
combine work with care and education, for example, or to allow them to
lead their preferred lifestyles. On the other hand, security does not just
mean employment protection, but encompasses the capacity to remain
and progress in work” (Kok 2003:9)4.
This sentiment was also reflected in a 2005 NESC Report on the
Developmental Welfare State5 which found Ireland‟s workforce increasingly
gravitating towards a more flexible structure with an increase in part-time and
casual workers.
4
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/jobs-jobs-jobs-creating-more-employment-in-europe-pbKE5703265/
5
http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_reports/en/NESC_113.pdf
15
2.5: Need for work activation on a full time or part time basis
It is generally accepted that employment is a major factor enabling people to
exit poverty and improve their quality of life. It is essential that people are
incentivised to work and to remain in the work force. It should never be more
beneficial for someone to be unemployed and in receipt of state support. In an
ideal world, this should involve incentivising people to enter full time
employment. Recent reforms introduced by the Department of Social
Protection ensure that unemployed people and those in part-time employment
are incentivised to take up full time employment where possible. However it
is clear from the above figures due to the high level of unemployment in
Ireland, full time employment is not always an option. Therefore part-time
work should be considered a viable alternative to incentivise people into the
workforce. It is recognised that combining part-time work with social welfare
payments is not an ideal situation. Yet, the aforementioned Part Time Job
Incentive Scheme (PTJI) is evidence that part time work is regarded as a
stepping stone to full time employment by the Department. One major
consequence of the state subsiding those who work part time is the cost to the
exchequer and the inflationary effect on the Live Register. One major
consequence of same is the cost to the exchequer and the inflationary effect
on the Live Register. Yet, the State should not disregard those currently
working part-time who are not in receipt of social welfare payments. There
are a number of professions where individuals work part-time on a daily basis
but are excluded from the social welfare system. Figures from the
Department of Social Protection indicate that the retail sector, security and
healthcare professions have the highest number of casual/part-time
employees, which would suggest that these would be the individuals most
adversely affected for working more days than permitted on the current
scheme. Other professions where individuals may lose benefits for working
too many days include carers, catering and bar staff, cleaning staff hired for
after-hours work, and those involved in the education sector.
The rate of long-term unemployment has increased from 7.3% in 2010 to
8.6% by the fourth quarter of 2011(Q4). Most worryingly, long-term
unemployment accounted for 60.3% of total unemployment for Q4 2011
16
compared to 51.5% a year earlier (Q4 2011: Quarterly National Household
Survey (QNHS) published by the Central Statistics Office (CSO)). The
Government is determined to tackle this problem by both creating jobs and
introducing measures to deal with work activation. Minister Joan Burton
outlined in a Dáil Response6 (No. 86 20th October 2011) that one of the pillars
used to encourage recipients of Jobseeker‟s payments to actively look for work
is by reducing the rate of payments, a measure which was introduced in the
Social Welfare Act 2010. She explained how this will
“encourage jobseekers to improve their skills in order to avoid the risk
of becoming long-term unemployed, and help them progress into
sustainable employment on a long-term basis”.
As provided for in the Programme for Government, the Department of Social
Protection is also establishing a new National Employment and Entitlements
Service (NEES). The approach now being adopted by the Department is to
move on from just being a transaction based service to actively helping clients
to re-enter the workforce or to upskill. In the Project Plan for the
Development and Implementation of the NEES published by the Department
of Social Protection in August 2011 it was recognised that
“while social welfare income support remains crucial and must be
adequate to meet needs, passive income support alone is not sufficient
if poverty and social exclusion are to be comprehensively addressed and
people are to have financial independence and reach their potential”
(Department of Social Protection 2011: 4)7.
The JobBridge Internship scheme was also introduced whereby recipients of
Jobseeker‟s payments are entitled to an extra €50 for working as an intern in
companies registered under the JobBridge Scheme. The general tenet of all
the schemes is that by entering the workforce, through an internship,
upskilling or employment, one has more chance of leaving the Live Register
and slowly coming off social welfare benefit. Encouraging part-time work
should also be considered by the government as a work activation measure
because part-time hours in a workplace can often lead to more permanent, full
time hours. Greater emphasis should also be placed on advertising the Part6
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/10/20/00084.asp
7
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/AboutUs/Documents/NEES.pdf
17
time Job Incentive Scheme (PTJI Scheme). In order to do so however, the
government needs to reform how part-time workers are dealt with in terms of
Jobseeker‟s payments.
2.6: International comparisons - Casual/Part time workers
As part of the research for this report, it was deemed necessary to examine
the social welfare systems and unemployment benefits schemes available in
other countries within the European Union. In order to produce a
comprehensive recommendations review of the current social welfare system,
it was essential to conduct research on how other countries have dealt with
loss of employment and the subsequent social welfare payments.
In comparison to other large-scale unemployment benefits schemes within the
European Union, Ireland appears to have the only benefit system that
operates on a days-worked basis. Rather than receiving benefits based solely
on how many days one has worked in a week, other countries in the European
Union follow an unemployment benefits scheme based on hours worked, often
combined with other components such as former salary, time spent working
before the loss of employment, and contributions paid to an insurance fund
while still employed.
In the United Kingdom, Jobseeker‟s Allowance (JSA) is split into two
categories: contribution-based JSA, which is based on the amount of
insurance contributions one has made in previous tax years, and incomebased JSA, which is based on any income or capital the applicant and his or
her partner may have. It should be noted that if the claimant and his or her
partner have over £16,000 in savings, they are not eligible for JSA. The
qualifications for Jobseeker‟s Allowance in the UK are similar to those in
Ireland, aside from the condition applying to part-time work. Applicants in the
UK must be entered into a Jobseeker‟s Agreement, be over 18 years of age
and under the state pension age, be lawfully living in the United Kingdom, be
capable of and available for work, be actively seeking work, and the claimant
18
cannot be in full-time education. With respect to part-time or casual work, an
applicant in the United Kingdom must be unemployed or working less than 16
hours per week. Unlike Ireland‟s system, the social welfare scheme in the
United Kingdom is based on hours worked in a week (not days), as long as the
applicant is still actively seeking employment.
The German system of unemployment insurance is meant to cover both
individuals who can work but are unemployed as well as those who do not
earn enough to cover basic living expenses. Similar to the United Kingdom,
Germany has two types of unemployment benefits. Unemployment Insurance
is based on the individual‟s previous earnings and is only payable for up to 12
months. In order to qualify for Unemployment Insurance, the claimant must
have worked for at least 12 months in the previous three years.
Unemployment Assistance benefits may be available to applicants after
passing a means test, if they run out of Unemployment Insurance. There is
no time limit for Unemployment Assistance, but the claimant must still be able
to work and be registered as a job seeker. With respect to part-time workers,
working more than 15 hours per week ends all benefits for a claimant.
The social welfare models in the Nordic countries particularly that of Sweden,
appear to be the systems that are the most universally acceptable and
idealistic. In Sweden, the main component of social welfare is an
unemployment insurance fund, and covers about 90% of the country‟s labour
force. This system includes a voluntary insurance scheme and a basic
mandatory scheme for those who did not wish to contribute to voluntary
insurance. Once a worker has been a full time member for twelve months,
they are entitled to receive up to 80% of their former salary in unemployment
payments. In terms of part-time work, the Swedish unemployment system
seems to acknowledge that many people searching for work will
simultaneously engage in part-time employment. Thus, the social welfare
scheme in Sweden provides unemployment benefits as long as the individual
is still available for work at least 3 hours per day or 17 hours per week.
Similar to other social welfare schemes within the European Union, Sweden
has Public Employment Services, which provides information and monitor
19
jobseekers‟ progress to ensure that they comply with all of the state‟s
regulations.
20
3: Methodology
The methodology employed for this research consists of a review of literature
and interviews with relevant stakeholders. In terms of the literature review,
the CSO was consulted to analyse statistics relating to the Live Register and
Quarterly National Household Survey. These statistics were used to highlight
the overarching need to deal with the issue of part-time workers. Previous
government, EU and Oireachtas commissioned reports were consulted to
obtain an overall perspective of the current situation in terms of Irish social
welfare payments and part-time workers. In order to acquire in depth
knowledge of Jobseeker‟s payments, both the Citizens Information and the
Department of Social Protection website pages were consulted. An
international comparative analysis was conducted by accessing the equivalent
Department of Social Protection website pages of each individual state and
OECD reports.
To be better informed of the widespread views of relevant stakeholders a
number of meetings were conducted. A guarantee of anonymity of the
interviewee was assured however see below for a list of groups involved in
this research. During these meetings, the interviewees were each asked the
same questions but most of the information gathered was through general
unstructured conversation. These meetings were pivotal in gaining a practical
insight into the problems experienced by part-time workers, the unemployed
and social welfare recipients. These findings formed the basis of the
recommendations made in this report.
IBEC – 9th February 2012
INOU – 29th February 2012
ICTU – 15th March 2012
Caremark – 23rd March 2012
21
4: Report from key stakeholders
From a general perspective, each of the stakeholders broadly agree that
entitlement by part-time workers to Jobseeker‟s payments needs to be
reviewed due to Irish work patterns changing significantly in recent years.
Along with a change to the work pattern the characteristics of those who now
find themselves unemployed has also altered with more highly skilled and
experienced people joining the Live Register. This they feel must be taken into
consideration when reviewing the system. It is accepted that such reforms
would benefit both employees and employers. Both the INOU and the Irish
Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) stated that an hour based system, rather
than days, would be the most effective method of reform. The Irish National
Organisation of the Unemployed (INOU) also raised the need to encourage
upskilling because a skills shortage is likely to occur. In terms of reforms to
date, the INOU regard the decision made in Budget 2012 to lower the number
of days from six to five as being regressive and one which further
disadvantages part-time workers. IBEC however felt that the JobBridge
scheme highlights how encouraging people to re-enter the workforce by way
of internship can be very effective and gave details of a number of individuals
who actually were employed full time once their internship was completed.
Despite the fact that all stakeholders were broadly in agreement, a number of
issues were identified which need to be addressed. In particular, the INOU
question employers who claim that they cannot find workers because people
would prefer to remain on social welfare benefits. They think that this number
is exaggerated and that most people who are unemployed will do everything
they can to re-enter the workplace. Yet they do agree that the current social
welfare system does not always lend itself to people partaking in part-time
work. The possibility of employers exploiting a new scheme was also brought
up. ICTU suggested that employers could take advantage of the system by
essentially dividing the day into hours and take on more employees and
reducing the hours of other employees. While this would technically give
more people jobs, it would also take hours away from current workers.
22
While all of the groups agreed that some individuals choose not to return to
the workforce, they stressed the importance of maintaining an incentive for
people to look for and return to work. INOU highlighted the importance of an
incentive for people to take part time work. Individuals often refuse work
since it may cause them to lose their unemployment status and everything
that comes with it, including mortgage relief, rent supplement and
education/training schemes. This sentiment needs to be counteracted, and
thus an incentive to re-enter the workforce is vital. ICTU reiterated the need
for the maintenance of an incentive to stay in work as integral to a reform of
the social welfare system. Meanwhile, on the other side of the scheme, ICTU
noted the importance of encouraging employers to take on the unemployed.
One of the most important issues raised by all the stakeholders is the need to
keep reforms revenue neutral. Concerns were expressed that an increase in
the number of part-time workers entering the Live Register could add further
financial burden to an already strained social welfare system.
ICTU
anticipated the possible burden such reforms could put on the Family Income
Supplement (FIS) scheme as well, since an increase in individuals working at
least 19 hours per week could increase the number of people applying for FIS,
putting a possible strain on the system. The INOU noted that in many cases
part time workers who are not in receipt of a jobseeker‟s payment would be in
a better financial position if they were eligible for FIS and more support should
be offered by the State to such individuals.
However, as these part-time
workers would still be in receipt of a Jobseeker‟s payment they will be
disqualified from making a FIS application. Thus, with the proposed changes in
this report, there will not necessarily be a new influx of applicants for FIS.
With such reforms as the ones suggested in this report, there are clear
logistical obstacles in implementing these changes, as INOU has pointed out.
These revisions of the social welfare system would constitute an essential
overhaul of the unemployment benefits scheme. With such a large reform,
INOU stressed that it would be necessary to consider the staff and
management needed for this type of system to work effectively. More
attention would need to be paid to the branches at local level, and more staff
would be needed in order to communicate with those who are trying to re-
23
enter the workforce. These logistical changes, especially at the local level,
would be necessary to allow these reforms to be implemented smoothly and
maintain efficiency in the system.
The aforementioned carers company, Caremark, is very supportive of changes
to the current system. They provided a number of examples of training
employees for a carer‟s position only for the worker to leave the job once they
realise they would not be in a position to claim benefits for working one hour
per day. An anecdotal story was also provided of an employee who was
offered three hours per day over five days but asked for management to state
for Social Welfare purposes that she worked 15 hours over two days in order
to claim benefit for the remaining three days. Management did not accede to
this request. Caremark, from a practical point of view, also complained of the
arduous „form filling‟ procedures currently in place with regard to part-time
workers in receipt of Jobseeker‟s payments and suggested a more simplified
process for staff and employers.
Table 4.1: Main points raised by stakeholders
Broadly in agreement that reform of the system is required
Advocated an hours based system rather than days
Fear that employers may exploit the situation
Incentives to come off social welfare payments and return to the workforce
Employers must be encouraged to employ part time workers
Reforms must be revenue neutral
Fear of an increased burden on FIS (Family Income Supplement)
Logistical concerns
24
5. Recommendations and Conclusions
1: Hours based system
It is clear that the current system, which is based on the number of days
worked per week, disenfranchises a number of part-time workers from
Jobseeker‟s payments. The stakeholders involved in this research all agreed
that a move towards an hours based system would be much fairer and
equitable to all involved. This sentiment was also agreed upon by the
Department of Social Protection officials during the two Oireachtas Committee
briefing meetings. As defined elsewhere, part-time workers are classified as
those who work less hours than their contemporaries, however this
classification fails to define the number of hours „less‟ refers to. As a
consequence, taking into account the three in six day rule ,one person could
work two twelve hour shifts over two days and be entitled to claim three days
benefit, whilst another person could work only two hours over five days and
not qualify for benefit. This is clearly unfair due to the changing work patterns
in Ireland and the need to bring people back into the workforce, consequently
this discrepancy needs to be addressed.
For the standard employee a working week is based on the number of hours
worked with the minimum wage set on a per hour basis. Therefore, as has
been recommendation by several other sources, the same criteria should be
used for recipients Jobseekers payments who work part- time. Although the
standard working week does not have a statutory basis, according to the
National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) “the present standard working
week is 39 hours per week. The Organisation and Working Time Act 1997
states that the maximum average working week for many employees cannot
exceed 48 hours. This does not mean that a working week can never exceed
48 hours, it is the average that is important.” It has been explained that, as of
July 2012, the amount of Jobseeker‟s Benefit (this does not apply to
Jobseekers Allowance) issued will be based on one fifth of the working week,
with the minimum amount of two fifths of the allowance payable to those who
work three days per week. It is thus recommended that each one fifth
payment should be equivalent to an eight hour working day, which over five
25
days amounts to 40 hours or the standard working week. From July 2012 a
recipient of Jobseeker‟s Benefit will be entitled to work three out of five days,
it is therefore recommended that this criterion should translate to 24 hours
which could be worked over five days. 24 hours however is the cut-off point.
A precedent already exists for this new system in terms of the number of
hours allowed under the Part Time Job Incentive Scheme. As the below table
illustrates this change will equate to the same level of payment to part-time
worker as is currently issued but structured in a different fashion.
Table 5.1: New hours system versus day system*
Hours based payment (40 hour
Days based payment (5 day
week)
week)
Works 8 hours per
€4.70x32=
Works 1 day per
€37.60x4 =
wk
€150.40
wk
€150.40
Works 16 hours per
€4.70x24=
Works 2 days per
€37.60x3 =
wk
€112.80
wk
€112.80
Works 24 hours per
€4.70x16=
Works 3 days per
€37.60x2 =
wk
€75.20
wk
€75.20
*Full Jobseeker‟s Payment = €188 per week/ €37.60 per day/ €4.70 per hour
There are many advantages to this system. It creates a much fairer system
whereby all part-time workers are entitled to the same benefit irrespective of
the number of days worked. Furthermore, it would bring Ireland in line with a
number of other western countries. There are obviously part-time who would
be disadvantaged by such changes. For the above mentioned worker who
works 24 hours over two days, under the present system he receives €112.80
per week in Jobseeker‟s Benefit but under an hour based system he would
only receive €75.20. This unfortunately is unavoidable if more part-time
workers are to be brought within the system.
In terms of recipients of Jobseekers Allowance, these new rules cannot apply
as this is a means tested payment (See Appendix G) and earnings for the part
time hours may affect their entitlements. Therefore the existing rules with
regard to days being counted instead of hours should remain. However,
greater emphasis should be placed on encouraging such individuals to part
26
take in the Part Time Jobs Incentive Scheme. This scheme particularly assists
those who are long term unemployed, which covers a majority of people who
are in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance. Currently recipients of Jobseekers
Benefit remain on this payment for 11 months before transferring to
Jobseekers Allowance. It is therefore suggested that the time limit of 15
months for eligibility for the PTJI should be reduced to 11 months allowing
greater participation in part time work.
This report recommends that part-time work should be defined as
working 24 or less hours per week.
The Part Time Jobs Incentive Scheme should be more widely
advertised and eligibility for same reduced from 15 months to 11
months.
2:
Incentivise workers
It is imperative that any change to the system will not have a negative knockon effect on an individual‟s entitlement to other supports. With an overloaded
social welfare system, all efforts must be made to encourage recipients to
relinquish some payments by returning to the workforce, albeit on a part-time
basis, whilst reassuring them that by doing so they will not be in a worse
financial position. Whilst realising the positive mental and health benefits of
working, it is recommended that a campaign be established by the
Department of Social Protection informing unemployed people of their rights if
they return to work. Bearing in mind that for many jobseekers they simply
cannot find work, for others they may be offered part-time work but are
unsure of how this will affect their entitlements or who to turn to for advice. It
is important that this information is freely available. For example, it is vital
that education and training supports remain in place in order to up-skill and
assist in career advancement. This includes the negative implications for parttime who apply for a Back to Education Allowance. The NEES will play a
pivotal role in this regard and the advancement of such a transaction based
27
service must be built upon. Currently, many recipients of Jobseeker‟s
payments are also eligible to a medical card. However, with the proposed
introduction of a Universal Health Insurance scheme for all by 2016,
individuals can rest assured that their medical costs will continue to be
covered despite re-entering the workforce. Furthermore, on return to the
workforce, eligibility for a medical card does not automatically cease. If an
individual has been unemployed for 12 months or more, they can retain their
medical card for three years on re-entering the workforce. During the March
2012 Oireachtas Committee briefing by the Department of Social Protection a
number of members explained how even they had not been aware of this fact,
highlighting the failure by the Department to inform even the general public of
entitlements for those re-entering to the workforce. This failure to provide
adequate information must be addressed.
In terms of Rent Supplement and Mortgage Interest Supplement, as both
allowances are means tested, the amount payable to an individual towards the
cost of rent or mortgage re-entering the workforce on a part-time basis will
decrease. However, because the rules governing both schemes state that a
recipient cannot work more than 30 hours per week, the system proposed in
this report (working less than 24 hours per week) will still allow a part-time
worker to claim some financial assistance towards their accommodation costs.
It is noted that the current system of offering assistance to parents for the
costs incurred by school going children may be affected by returning to work.
However with an increase in the household income due to payment for the
part-time work, this assistance may no longer be required.
This report recommends that a concerted effort is made from
governmental level to inform unemployed people of their entitlements
if they re-enter the workforce and reassure the public that their
financial circumstances may not be adversely affected by returning to
part-time work.
3:
Must be Revenue Neutral
28
The most obvious problem which may arise as a result of reforms to this
system is the cost to the state which may be incurred. If there are currently
55,000 Part-time Underemployed people not in receipt of a Jobseeker‟s
payment, bringing even a small percentage of this figure onto unemployment
benefits will increase the numbers on the Live Register. This will add extra
financial strain on an already overstretched social welfare system. It is
imperative that any changes to the system are done so in a revenue neutral
manner.
An increase in the number of people in receipt of Jobseeker‟s payment will be
somewhat financially counteracted by people receiving less means tested
benefits such as Mortgage Interest Supplement and Rent Supplement and the
Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance. Furthermore, with more
people re-entering the workforce, a greater number of employees will be
brought into the tax net (and possibly subjected to payment of the Universal
Social Charge if earning over €10,036) generating further revenue for the
state. PRSI contributions from employers for part-time workers will also be
contributed to the public purse. An increased household income will be spent
in the general economy consequently improving consumer confidence and the
overall financial situation in the country.
The report recognises that any changes to the system must be
revenue neutral.
4:
Incentivise employers
It is not only important for workers themselves to have an incentive to reenter the workforce, it is vital for employers to have an incentive in hiring
people as part-time workers. By taking on part-time workers, employers will
have the chance to help those that are unemployed and provide them with the
opportunity to gain work experience and improve their standard of living.
New part-time workers can also add ideas and talent to an employer‟s
workforce, add value to an organisation, and enhance the performance or
efficiency of the organization. It may also assist small or struggling businesses
who cannot necessarily afford to take on full-time staff.
29
Further, if employers were to take on part-time workers, they would
subsequently be paying less in PRSI contributions for these employees, since
the cost of the contributions would be less than a full-time worker‟s due to
their lower wages. This is in line with the halving of PRSI contribution from
8.5% to 4.25% for jobs that pay up to €356 per week since July 2011. Thus,
employers should not be deterred by the cost of PRSI contributions for parttime workers. While incentivising people to re-enter the workforce is the most
important element in improving the social welfare system, it remains vital to
provide an incentive to the actual employers to hire these part-time workers
in order to make these changes feasible.
The report recommends that employers must be incentivised to take
on part-time workers by highlighting the advantages, both from an
economic and social perspective, of doing so.
5:
Logistical Issues
With such large-scale changes in the social welfare system as this report
recommends, it is acknowledged that there will inevitably be several logistical
issues that will need to be dealt with. One of the most prevalent is regarding
the staff of social welfare offices that assist those that are out of work or in
receipt of social welfare payments at a local level. With a shift from a days
based to an hours-based scheme, it is clear that there will need to be training
for staff or information provided to allow those who work in the Department of
Social Protection to adjust to a different system. Additionally, there is always
the possibility that with an increase in the number of people on the Live
Register, who would now be eligible for Jobseeker‟s payments, there will be a
need for more staff to handle the day-to-day business of the system. With
more people eligible to receive unemployment benefits, there is also a chance
of more delays with regards to paperwork and processing.
Since there is the possibility of increased paperwork and subsequent delays, it
would be advisable to implement an online system where employees and
30
employers would have a secure PIN and access to a personalised website page
with details of an individual‟s unemployment benefits and hours worked. It
suggested that responsibility should rest with the employer to log the number
of hours the employee spends working each week with the Department of
Social Protection, so that the worker receives the correct amount of
Jobseeker‟s payment. This would streamline the claims process and reduce
the amount of paperwork and delays. This would also help the agency staff,
since logging hours and keeping track of payments would be faster and far
easier.
This report recommends a streamlined, online process for logging
hours worked by a person in receipt of unemployment benefit.
Currently, one of the most important aspects of receiving jobseekers
payments is that an individual fulfils the Genuinely Seeking Work (GSW) and
availability requirements. One that is out of work and receiving jobseeker‟s
payments must prove that they are available for work and actively seeking
employment, by way of letters, attendance at interviews, proof of CV‟s being
sent to organizations, etc. With a change in the system from days-worked to
hours-worked so as to include more part-time workers, some may argue that
these part-time workers may not fulfil the GSW requirements, since they are
supposedly spending more time working. However, it should be noted that
this change should not largely alter the present system. The NEES will
continue to be a transaction based body which actively assists individuals to
re-enter the workforce and recipients of unemployment benefit will still be
required to provide proof of seeking full-time employment. With reference to
availability for work requirement, because the maximum amount of hours
worked would be the equivalent to the three days currently allowed, the same
rules which presently exist will continue.
This report recommends that part-time workers in receipt of
unemployment benefit will continue to prove that they are actively
seeking and available for work.
31
Conclusion
After extensive analysis of the current unemployment benefit scheme, it is
clear that changes to the system should have been put in place several years
ago. If one person can work ten hours a week distributed over two days and
receive unemployment, but another individual can work the same ten hours
but distributed over five days and not be eligible for any social welfare
payment, the system currently in place is decidedly unequal. Those who are
unemployed and on the Live Register should not be discouraged from seeking
part-time work, and should not feel that it is more of a benefit to them to
remain entirely unemployed and receive social welfare than to engage in parttime work. It is vital for Ireland to have a fair and equitable system in regards
to those who are unemployed and want to re-enter the workforce by seeking
part-time employment. However, such a change to the system must be done
on a relatively revenue neutral basis without having an overall negative
impact on the Live Register figures.
The recommendations included in this report, although comprehensive, do not
require drastic changes to the system. It is merely a rearrangement: with a
maximum of 24 hours per week considered part-time, this averages out to 8
hours per day, which is considered three days of work. Thus, workers would
still only be working a maximum of three days to qualify for jobseeker‟s
payment, but those three days would be counted in hours instead of full days.
This way of calculating benefits is more equitable as well as practical, and
allows those individuals who only work a few hours a day to still be eligible for
social welfare payments. These changes would still follow the same
parameters as the current system; the scheme would simply be rearranged in
order to accommodate more part-time workers.
These are reforms that should have been implemented before this point, while
unemployment was still at a low level and such changes would have been
easier to make. The report released by the Department of Social Protection
referred to in this report, „Review of the Application of the Unemployment
Benefit and Assistance Schemes to Workers who are not Employed on a Full-
32
Time Basis‟, was released back in 2006, when unemployment was under 5%,
as compared to the current unemployment rate of over 14%. While these
reforms should have been made several years ago, when the country had a
lower number of people on the Live Register, changes still need to be made as
soon as possible even if doing so will be more difficult. With so many people
unemployed, we should be encouraging people to try and enter the workforce,
even if it is only part-time work. By going ahead with the reforms suggested
in this report, we will be taking a step toward improving the standard of living
and creating a fairer and equitable social welfare system.
33
6: Sources
“Average Net Weekly Live Register Changes by Sex, Month”. StatBank Ireland. Central
Statistics Office Ireland.
http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/database/eirestat/Live%20Register/Live%20Regist
er_statbank.asp
"Family Income Supplement." Citizen's Information. 12 Mar. 2012. Web.
<http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/soc
ial_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/family_income_supplement.html
>.
“Finland”. Benefits and Wages: Country Chapters. OECD. 1 July 2009.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/9/47346807.pdf
“Germany”. Benefits and Wages: Country Chapters. OECD. 1 July 2009.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/33/47346817.pdf
"Information for Employees." National Employment Rights Authority. Web.
<http://www.employmentrights.ie/en/informationforemployees/industryspecificinf
ormation/printing/>.
“Ireland”. Benefits and Wages: Country Chapters. OECD. 1 July 2009.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/30/47346477.pdf
“Jobseeker‟s Allowance”. Citizen’s Information. 24 January 2012.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/une
mployed_people/jobseekers_allowance.html
“Jobseeker‟s Benefit”. Citizen’s Information. 21 February 2012.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/une
mployed_people/jobseekers_benefit.html
34
Kenny, Mary Anne. "A History of Ireland's Social Health Insurance." Irish Medical Times.
14 Aug. 2008. Web. <http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2008/08/a-history-ofirelands-social-health-insurance.html>.
Kok, Wim. "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Creating More Employment in Europe." Employment Task
Force, Nov. 2003. Web.
<http://www.mol.fi/mol/en/99_pdf/en/90_publications/employment_taskforce_rep
ort2003.pdf>.
"Live Register Figures: March 2008." Central Statistics Office. 4 Apr. 2008. Web.
<http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2
008/lreg_mar2008.pdf>.
"Live Register Figures: March 2012." Central Statistics Office. 4 Apr. 2012. Web.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0404/liveregistermarch.pdf
Lundgren, Bo. "Recent Development in Unemployment Insurance in Sweden." Proc. of
International Experts Workshop of the ISSA Technical Commission on
Unemployment Insurance and Employment Maintenence, Brussels. 10-11 April
2006.
http://www.issa.int/pdf/workshop/bruxelles06/2lundgren.pdf
“Norway”. Benefits and Wages: Country Chapters. OECD. 1 July 2009.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/0/47346657.pdf
"Project Plan for the Development and Implementation of the National Employment
and Entitlements Service." Department of Social Protection. Aug. 2011. Web.
<http://www.welfare.ie/EN/AboutUs/Documents/NEES.pdf>.
"Quarterly National Household Survey." Central Statistics Office. 7 Mar. 2012. Web.
<http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2
011/qnhs_q42011.pdf>.
35
“Review of the Application of the Unemployment Benefit and Assistance Schemes
Conditions to Workers who are not Employed on a Full-Time Basis”. Department
of Social Protection. 2007.
“Spain”. Benefits and Wages: Country Chapters. OECD. 1 July 2009.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/10/47346797.pdf
“Sweden”. Benefits and Wages: Country Chapters. OECD. 1 July 2009.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/41/47346621.pdf
“Table: Unemployment Benefits”. Tax/Benefit Policies: Overview for Selected Years.
OECD. 2007.
"The Developmental Welfare State." National Economic Social Council 113. National
Economic and Social Development Office, May 2005.
<http://www.socialinclusion.ie/documents/NESCDevelopmentalWelfareState.pdf>.
"The Working Week." Citizen's Information. 3 Apr. 2012. Web.
<http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_condi
tions/hours_of_work/working_week.html>.
“Unemployment and Job Seeking in Germany”. Angloinfo: Berlin.
http://berlin.angloinfo.com/countries/germany/unemploy.asp
“Unemployment Benefit in France”. French-Property.com. 15 April 2009.
http://www.french-property.com/news/money_france/unemployment_benefits/
“Unemployment Benefits”. Nordic Social Insurance Portal. Norden.
http://www.nordsoc.org/en/Sweden/Unemployment1/
“Unemployment, Benefits, and Job Seeking in France”. AngloInfo: French Riviera.
http://riviera.angloinfo.com/countries/france/employ.asp
“Unemployment Insurance”. The French Social Security System. Cleiss: Au Service de la
Protection Sociale a L‟international.
http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/regimes/regime_france/an_5.html
“Unemployment Pay”. Sweden.se.
36
http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Work/The-Swedish
system/Employment_based_benefits/Unemployment-pay/
“United Kingdom”. Benefits and Wages: Country Chapters. OECD. 1 July 2009.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/28/47346497.pdf
“Working Part-Time”. Citizens’s Information. 21 February 2012.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/types_of_employment/part_time
_employment/part_time_workers.html
37
7: Appendices
Appendix A: March 2012 Live Register Figures
38
Appendix B: QNHS Quarter 4 2011 Figures
39
Appendix C
Ref. No. 23617/11
To the Minister for Social Protection
To ask the Minister for Social Protection her plans to implement the recommendations of
the review of the application of the unemployment benefit and assistance schemes
conditions to workers who are not employed on a full time basis which was published in
2007; the recommendations that are likely to be considered; when such a reform of the
current system will take place; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
- Anthony Lawlor.
*
For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 14th September, 2011.
REPLY
Minister for Social Protection (Joan Burton T.D.)
The jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker‟s allowance schemes provide income support for
people who have lost work and are unable to find alternative employment. It is a
fundamental qualifying condition for these benefits that a person must be available for fulltime work.
It is recognised that a changing labour market has resulted in a move away from the more
traditional work patterns, with a consequent increase in the number of atypical workers. In
response, the Department conducted a „Review of the Application of the Unemployment
Benefit and Assistance Schemes Conditions to workers who are not employed on a fulltime basis‟ which examined the application of the jobseekers benefit and allowance
scheme conditions to workers who are employed part-time, casual or systematic short-time
basis.
The review made a number of recommendations which are under active consideration
within the Department. These considerations are taking place in the context of the „Report
on the desirability and feasibility of introducing a single social assistance payment for
people of working age‟, the current economic situation, and the considerable
administrative and IT change that implementation of the recommendations would require.
ENDS
40
Appendix D
Question No. 86
Ref No: 30448/11
To the Minister for Social Protection
To ask the Minister for Social Protection the steps in place to ensure that persons who are
in receipt of jobseeker's benefit are actively seeking employment; the measures taken to
deal with social welfare recipients who have refused a job offer; and if she will make a
statement on the matter.
- Anthony Lawlor.
*
For WRITTEN answer on Thursday, 20th October, 2011.
REPLY
Minister for Social Protection ( Joan Burton T.D )
The jobseekers schemes provide income support for people who are seeking their first job
or have lost work and are seeking alternative employment. A fundamental qualifying
condition for both the jobseeker‟s benefit and jobseeker‟s allowance is that a person must
be available for and genuinely seeking full-time work.
To satisfy this condition, it is necessary for the person to demonstrate that he or she has
taken some positive action and is making genuine efforts to secure employment. If a
person fails to satisfy this condition his/her claim will be disallowed. In addition, an
unreasonable refusal to accept an offer of suitable employment may also lead to a
disallowance.
The National Employment Action Plan (NEAP) is the main activation measure for
jobseekers and provides for a systematic engagement of the employment services with
unemployed people. The NEAP process is a key element in addressing the progression
needs of those on the live register. It provides a stimulus to job search and affords an
opportunity to explore, under professional guidance, the full range of employment and
training services offered by FÁS.
As one pillar of this overall approach, reduced rates were provided for in the Social
Welfare Act 2010, which will encourage jobseekers to improve their skills, in order to
avoid the risk of becoming long-term unemployed, and help them to progress into
sustainable employment on a long-term basis. The intent of the reduced rates is to ensure
compliance with the activation processes. Basically, there is a right to a payment but also
a matching responsibility on the unemployed person to engage with the system. This, I
think, is a reasonable approach from the individual‟s and the taxpayers‟ perspective.
The reduced rates, which apply to personal jobseekers payments, may be implemented
where a jobseeker:
41
i) refuses an appropriate offer of training by an officer of my Department;
ii) refuses, or declines to avail of, an offer of training from FÁS;
iii) declines an intervention under the NEAP;
iv) does not attend NEAP meetings with a FÁS officer;
v) drops out of the NEAP process.
The relevant legislation provides safeguards for the social welfare recipient in terms of the
reasonableness of the intervention being offered. In common with many social welfare
provisions, the new measures allow for discretion on the part of a deciding officer, as an
offer of training, education or employment must be viewed in the context of a person‟s
circumstances. Where a customer has been subject to the reduced rate, the normal rate of
payment will be restored from a current date when the person subsequently engages with
the NEAP process or takes up offers of training that were made.
The NEAP is central to ongoing development in the labour market policy area and will be
progressed within the framework of a new National Employment and Entitlements Service
which, as provided for in the Programme f or Government, is being established by the
Department. The new service will integrate employment and benefit payment services,
currently delivered by FÁS and the Department, respectively, within the Department and
will be based on a case management approach with the objective of providing a more
customised and personal service to customers.
In line with good international practice, this new service will focus primarily on activation.
The objective is to encourage and enable customers to embark on developmental pathways
appropriate to their needs; pathways to employment, training and /or personal
development. The objective of the new service is to offer users a high level, personalised
employment support and prioritise the provision of more intensive support for those on
the live register who are identified as being most at risk of long-term unemployment. A
key feature of the new service will be that customers will be expected to engage with these
options in order to retain their entitlement to full benefit payments. The measures outlined
above support this approach.
42
Appendix E
Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Social Protection, and Education,
Barriers to Employment: Discussion with Department of Social Protection
Extracts from Debate referring specifically to casual workers
Wednesday 21st September 2011
The Joint Committee met at 9.30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Deputy Ray Butler,
Senator John Kelly,
Deputy Áine Collins,
Senator Michael Mullins,
Deputy Michael Conaghan,
Senator Feargal Quinn.
Deputy Tom Fleming,
Deputy Brendan Griffin,
Deputy Seán Kyne,
Deputy Anthony Lawlor,
Deputy John Lyons,
Deputy Nicky McFadden,
Deputy Mary Mitchell O‟Connor,
Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin,
Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh,
Deputy Brendan Ryan,
In attendance: Senator Fidelma Healy Eames.
DEPUTY DAMIEN ENGLISH IN THE CHAIR.
The joint committee met in private session until 9.35 a.m.
Chairman: I welcome Mr. David Dillon, principal officer; Mr. Paul Morrin, principal
officer; Mr. Pat McDonnell, assistant principal officer; Mr. Joe Meehan, assistant principal
officer; and Ms Patricia Molloy, assistant principal officer, from the Department of Social
Protection. By virtue of section 17(2)(i) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are
protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are
directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they
are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are
directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be
given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible,
they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or
in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-
43
standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or
make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way
as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Mr. Dillon to begin the briefing on proposals to
remove barriers to taking up employment where real income is reduced when social
welfare benefits are lost.
Mr. David Dillon: I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for the
invitation to discuss this issue. Mr. Paul Morrin is a principal officer in the Department. He
is on secondment from the Central Statistics Office where he was engaged as a statistician.
He works on the dynamics of the live register which is germane to these proceedings. Mr.
Pat McDonnell works with me on the issues of unemployment and activation policy. Mr.
Joe Meehan who is based in our Sligo office deals with rent allowance and associated
matters. Ms Patricia Molloy who is based in our Carrick-on-Shannon office deals with
operational matters.
The topic under discussion is wide and open-ended. Therefore, what we have attempted to
do in the material we have given members is provide a degree of context and an indication
of behaviours in respect of the live register. The subject matter receives some press
coverage from time to time. We have detailed instances which I will go through. I will also
indicate how they reflect replacement rates; the interaction with other schemes such as rent
supplement, and some policy directions, including in respect of the advisory group on tax
and social welfare and the general national employment and entitlement service, NEES.
Deputy Anthony Lawlor: I also read the document last night, which gave a great insight
into the whole social welfare system. The change in work practices surrounds short-term
employment involving people coming into part-time jobs and how that affects their social
welfare payments. A number of people have told me how difficult it is if they get a job for
one or two days a week, or if they work two or three hours a day. When they go back to
the social welfare office they may find it extremely difficult to get their due entitlements
back. The system does not seem to be flexible enough to deal with our modern workforce.
In 2007, a review was published of the application of the unemployment benefit and
assistance scheme conditions for workers who are employed on a full-time basis. It made a
number of recommendations and I would like to know how far down the road we are with
those recommendations.
People may be working two hours per day until they build up the number of hours,
particularly in the care sector. Care organisations find that people do not want to take up
such jobs because they will lose a full day‟s entitlement as a result. Perhaps we should
consider people on an hourly basis, rather than a daily basis. In that way, if they work ten
hours a week they would be entitled to 25 hours of social welfare payments. Perhaps we
should start thinking about that, although there may be cost problems associated with it.
Mr. David Dillon: The review the Deputy mentioned is referred to in the Department as a
typical review for convenience purposes. As he rightly said, that was published in 2007.
One of the features of our unemployment system is, and has been for a long time, that it is
predicated on the day of unemployment. One gets paid in respect of days on which one is
not employed.
44
The unemployment week is a six-day week and Sunday is not included as a day of work.
As a test of unemployment, a person employed more than three-in-six days - three days in
any six-day period - is considered not to be unemployed and, therefore, does not get a
payment. As Deputy Lawlor stated, that bears an increasingly small relationship to the
world of work at present, with the growth in atypical employment, casual part-time work,
etc., being more of a feature.
One of the facets of the current three-in-six days unemployment week is that part-time
workers, depending on how they arrange their week, can be in a couple of anomalous
situations. If somebody is only working part time and only available for part-time work
and if he or she gets let go from that part-time work, he or she will not qualify for any
payment. Therefore, there is under-compensation. The person‟s part-time activity is not
recognised and he or she has not got paid. The second aspect of the part-time work is that
if somebody is working part time and gets let go, and is available for work, he or she will
get paid for a full week‟s work. Such a person will get paid for six days and gets overcompensated. Some part-timers will be under-compensated in the current system; some
part-timers will be over-compensated.
On the three-in-six rule, if one goes to four-in-six one loses payment for the full week.
That is a barrier. That is a structural problem within the system. People are reluctant to
take on that extra day and employers, in those circumstances, will find it difficult to fill
certain types of employment.
Another feature is, increasingly, people are being offered two or three hours a day or two
or three hours a morning over five days, and that does not square with the current system.
Recognising all of those, the Department commissioned and carried out a value-for-money
report, and came up with recommendations. The recommendation, for unemployment
benefit recipients who are employed part time, is to move away from the concept of the
day of unemployment and move to a system that recognises loss of hours and loss of
money, a combination of both. We need to proceed on that.
Persons who work part time are known in our system as “casual”. At the time the
Department commissioned that report, there were 20,000 casuals on its books, of whom
16,000 got paid in any given week. This is because peoples‟ work patterns will change and
not everyone who satisfies the three-in-six rule this week will satisfy it next week, etc.,
because they will be doing cover, etc. Of the 20,000 registered casuals, a rolling 16,000
were getting paid in any given week. The number of casuals is now at 83,000 or 86,000,
with the change in the economy. It is of a scale that is much more significant that it was
then.
Of the 20,000 casuals of whom 16,000 were working, there was under-compensation and
over-compensation. Persons were adjusting their patterns to suit the welfare week. Sunday
is not included as one of the welfare days and persons can work Sundays and it does not
affect their welfare entitlement - it does not come into that three-in-six equation I
mentioned earlier. Our systems are established and set up to pay on a six-day week. There
are significant ISD requirements required to move to a seven-day week. There are
significant administrative and structural issues in our local offices to change from a six-day
week to a seven-day week and move to an hours basis. Finally, because there will be
winners and losers in this if the Department goes down the route recommended in the
45
report, there is that issue of how that is played out to consider as well. Does one save those
who are currently doing this and if one saves those, does one perpetually trap them at that
lower rate of participation, etc.?
In light of the change from 16,000 casuals to 83,000 who are getting paid now, we are
looking at having an outsider update the review, that is, have a quick relevance check on
the review to see how relevant the recommendations still are to the changed circumstances
with a view to proceeding. If that gets proofed, we intend proceeding to make the changes
because there have been significant ISD developments in the past couple of years in the
Department to make the changes to allow us to move to that recognition of hours lost and
money lost for atypical employment. Therefore, it is on the cards but it is slow to move
because it is significant.
Chairman: Is that report four years old?
Mr. David Dillon: Yes, late 2007.
Chairman: It sat there for four years.
Mr. David Dillon: It sat there, it was considered. There are the impact assessments and
there is ISD. There is an ISD queue for development, etc. There are other issues. It has not
been enacted but that is not to say it sat there, if the committee knows what I mean. There
is a slight difference.
Deputy Anthony Lawlor: If it has not been enacted, it was sitting there. I agree with the
Chairman on that.
Mr. David Dillon: It was known about. It is on the radar. It is in the queue for
development work, etc.
The other change since it came out was in 2008 the numbers coming through the doors
mushroomed, as did the space and capacity to make any change. On the changes required,
if the live register had stayed as it was, at 165,000 or 180,000, the changes required would
still be significant in that context. They are of an order of magnitude bigger with the
changes that have happened since 2008 on the live register. Even for the 20,000 casuals
and rolling 16,000 equation I mentioned earlier, it would require significant development.
If one must change the organisation for 5,000 persons, one must change it for 80,000. The
changes are significant. I might be a little Jesuitical in my differentiation. It has not sat
there. We have been aware of it and it has been in a queue, so to speak, of work.
Chairman: It is something we can work on.
Mr. David Dillon: It is something we can work on.
Chairman: It has become more urgent.
Mr. David Dillon: When we move, in this space there will be winners and there will be
losers. Persons have changed their behaviour or persons are manipulating their behaviour
and, logically, shaping their work and participation patterns to suit the system, and that
does not suit everyone.
46
Interestingly, as part of that, Lansdowne Market Research was commissioned to do a
survey of casual workers and employers who were employing casuals. The casual workers
were all saying the employers are not offering any more work and the employers were
saying that they were offering them all the work they could get. That is the space it is in.
There are different narratives out there around these people.
It is out there and we plan to move on it. We just need to audit the recommendations in
light of the changed circumstances and then begin a process of implementation.
47
Appendix F
Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection, Jobs and Education Report from Ms.
Kathleen Stack, Assistant Secretary Department of Social Protection,
Extracts from Debate referring specifically to casual workers
Wednesday 21st March 2012
The Joint Committee met at 09.30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Deputy Ray Butler,
Senator John Kelly,
Deputy Áine Collins,
Senator Michael Mullins,
Deputy Joan Collins,
Senator Feargal Quinn.
Deputy Tom Fleming,
Deputy Seán Kyne,
Deputy Anthony Lawlor,
Deputy John Lyons,
Deputy Mary Mitchell O‟Connor,
Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh,
DEPUTY AODHÁN Ó RÍORDÁIN IN THE CHAIR.
Vice Chairman: I welcome Ms Kathleen Stack, assistant secretary of the Department of
Social Protection, Mr. Philip Cox, Mr. Bernard Tonge and Mr. David Dillon, principal
officers, and Ms Geraldine Gleeson, chief appeals officer.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that
members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the
Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009 witnesses are protected by
absolute privilege in respect of their evidence at this committee. If you are directed by the
committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to
do so you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of the evidence.
You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings
is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that
where possible you should not criticise nor make charges against any person or persons or
an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.
I believe Ms Stack has two presentations and I ask her to begin, with Ms Gleeson to
follow.
Kathleen Stack: I would like to briefly look at the question of casual workers claiming
social welfare benefits. At present, in excess of 93,000 jobseeker‟s benefit and assistance
48
clients are engaged in regular casual employment. The work situation for these clients falls
into two main categories. First, some 85,000 are involved in the casual and part-time
worker category. These include those involved in work traditionally described as casual in
that it involves employment where the person has no assurance of being re-employed with
the same employer on an ongoing basis. The employment is typically for a few occasional
days and the number of days involved depends on the level of activity in the employer‟s
business. Also included in the general description of casual workers are those involved in
part-time employment. These clients have an ongoing expectation of employment from the
same employer, although the number of days and the hours per week vary. This category
encompasses some 43,000 jobseeker‟s assistance and some 42,000 jobseeker‟s benefit
clients.
Second, there is also the systematic short-time category. This covers employment where
the person works on a reduced number of days in the working week on a systematic basis.
In these cases, there must be a clear repetitive pattern of employment each week, for
example, one, two or three days in each week - or perhaps two days this week and five
days next week - with that cycle repeated on a systematic basis. There are over 8,000
jobseeker clients in this category.
All jobseeker customers in these categories must give a written declaration of the days
they work on a weekly basis. To receive a jobseeker payment for that week, the customer
must have been unemployed for three days in the previous six-day period. On the
jobseeker‟s allowance scheme, 60% of the client‟s earnings from employment are taken
into account in calculating the rate of payment, with €20 per day bring disregarded for
associated employment expenses - subject to a maximum of €60 per week.
This issue of casual workers was discussed last September at a previous presentation by
the Department. At that time, it was recognised that there had been significant changes in
the labour market in recent years. It was recognised that there had been a significant
increase in what is termed atypical employment and that, for many, the traditional nine to
five pattern of employment was increasingly no longer the norm. The Department‟s
jobseeker schemes generally reflect this traditional pattern as they are based on the concept
of a day of unemployment in the context of a six day week. In this regard, there was some
discussion about the Department‟s report - Review of the Application of the
Unemployment Benefit & Assistance Schemes Conditions to Workers Who Are Not
Employed on a Full-Time Basis - which includes, inter alia, recommendations to move
away from the day of unemployment concept and introduce a system that incorporates
recognition based on hours. Such a system would be more flexible than the current one and
would serve to encourage people to take up part-time employment. The Department
recognises that this can be important in helping people back into the labour market and
provides a significant first step leading to full-time employment.
However, moving from the current system to the one envisaged in the report involves
degrees of complexities and an inter-disciplinary group has been established within the
Department that is tasked with resolving these issues. It is intended to have
recommendations ready for inclusion in the next budget. In conclusion, I hope I have given
the committee a good sense of the work in progress in the Department in these areas and I
welcome any comments and views.
49
Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: My questions concern both presentations, the first of
which is Ms Stack whom I thank her for the presentation. The other part of the
presentation was on casual or part-time workers. Have any changes been made in that
regard? Currently, people on jobseeker‟s allowance must give a written declaration if they
are working on various days. Has that system been made any easier? I asked that question
of a colleague of Ms Stack in a previous presentation. For instance, if someone gets a
day‟s work and they have the option to do an additional day is it possible for them to text
the Department with their PPS number and the day they will be working, given that will
result in a saving to the Department because it would not have to pay for that day?
There is often a concern among those on jobseeker‟s allowance in particular that if they
state they are working for a period of time they will lose their entitlement to fuel
allowance, back to education allowance and so on by delaying their availability. Those in
receipt of the back to education allowance in particular appear to be discouraged in that
regard because the timeframe is tight and they are discouraged from taking up work in that
period. Some of them might chance their arm and opt for work in the black economy.
Vice Chairman: Does Ms Stack wish to respond to some of those issues before we
proceed?
Mr. Bernard Tonge: As I understand it, the question refers to the Department allowing a
casual jobseeker customer use SMS texting to declare their employment in a particular
week. There are no current plans for that. The Department is extending the use of text
messaging to its customers to remind them of appointments they have and of their next
signing day arrangements. It does not plan to use text messaging for declaring the
unemployment pattern. As Ms Stack stated in her presentation, for casual workers there
must be three days of unemployment in the previous six days. That declaration must be
made on a weekly basis. Currently, and for the last number of years, it was made on what
we call a casual signing docket where the person would put in their days of unemployment
etc. We have automated that process now and are hoping to expand into the use of
scanning that facility when it is returned, thereby removing some of the clerical effort.
More particularly, from the perspective of the customer we are introducing an on-line
facility where the customer can go on-line and declare their unemployment pattern. That
facility is working on a pilot basis in one local office at the moment and depending on how
it progresses, we will extend it to other offices over the coming months.
Deputy Anthony Lawlor: I have a number of questions for the witnesses. In the mid1980s we had problems associated with the black economy. Have we learned from
previous experiences and was any report done at that stage in regard to how we could
address the black economy issue? On security of PPS numbers, it is easy to access another
person‟s PPS number and use it. I welcome the proposed online facility for use by casual
workers. Has the use of other more secure methods, such as fingerprinting or eyescanning, in respect of people in receipt of social welfare benefits been considered given
the concerns in relation to security of PPS numbers?
On casual workers, I have a copy of a report published in 2007 which includes a number of
recommendations in regard to casual workers. The joint committee is currently engaged in
work in the area of casual labour. In January 2008, there were 20,000 people engaged in
part time work. In January 2009, there were approximately 65,000 people engaged in part
50
time work. The current figure in this regard is 85,000. It was stated it is proposed to
address this issue in budget 2013.
I am alarmed to hear that some of the recommendations of this report have not been acted
upon. Why is that? The report proposed positive changes in the working regime in this
country yet almost seven years later little has been done. The labour market moves rapidly.
It is a shame to say that the Department of Social Protection does not appear to move at all.
It is a criticism of the departmental officials that there has been no change in the casual
working area. I will provide an example. I can work ten hours a week and claim three days
payment but if Deputy Kyne works work ten hours a week, in the form of two hours per
day, he will not be entitled to any payment. That is not fair. It now appears there will not
be any change, in terms of what is being proposed, until budget 2013. We need to get off
the fence on this. The objective is to get people back to work, be it for one hour, two hours
or three hours per day, potentially leading to full time employment. What we are currently
doing is restricting this. I apologise if my remarks on this appear strong but they need to be
stated.
Ms Kathleen Stack: I will ask Mr. Dillon to comment on the part-time work issue as he
is more closely associated with the 2007 report.
Mr. David Dillon: When I appeared before the committee in September we discussed the
report. After the hearing in September a decision was taken to proceed with it, examine its
recommendations and ensure provision can be made for their introduction in the budget for
2013.
A degree of complexity is involved in changing the system operationally, administratively
and with regard to the impact on customers. The report recognises that problems exist in
the current system, with elements of overcompensation and under-compensation some of
which were highlighted in the examples given.
Moving to the concept of hours and away from the concept of a day with regard to
unemployment is more flexible. We recognise flexibility is required in the labour market,
and we are using the legislative windows available to us and considering the impact on the
current administration and the information systems division. We are working on it and we
will make recommendations in the next budget.
Deputy Anthony Lawlor: The question I asked is why it took so long.
Mr. David Dillon: The report was issued in the context of social partnership. Employers‟
bodies made observations as did ICTU, and winners and losers come out of the report.
That is its context.
Deputy Anthony Lawlor: Seven years.
Mr. David Dillon: Yes, and a decision was made recently to proceed with it, which will
happen in a shorter time frame.
Senator Michael Mullins: We need to use our imagination and make it easier for people
to make the transition from social welfare to work and from work to social welfare. People
51
offered short term irregular work will not take it because it is too cumbersome for them to
resume signing on and they will lose benefits.
We should also examine the aggregation of hours as distinct from the number of days that
people work. A person can sign on if they work all of their hours in one or two days.
However, if they work for two hours a day for five days they are barred from signing on.
The system is unequal and unfair.
Vice Chairman: Senator Mullins touched on the move from welfare to work. In this
regard, let me refer to the poverty trap of social welfare, the cage that protects but does not
set one free. How can we make it easier for people to move from welfare to work? Some
93,000 casual part-time workers in receipt of the jobseeker‟s allowance want to work fulltime but perhaps do not understand or have the necessary information on the entitlements
they would retain if they did so. Could the delegates comment on that?
Mr. David Dillon: Not all of the 83,000 are in the poverty trap, by any means.
Vice Chairman: I am not saying they are.
Mr. David Dillon: The issue associated with the poverty trap revolves around the issue of
replacement rates. The vast majority on the live register would be better off working at the
national minimum wage. On two thirds of the average industrial wage, they would be
better off again. On the average industrial wage, they would be significantly better off in
most cases. There are a few outliers, which we discussed in September because that was
the topic of the presentation. I refer to those in receipt of rent allowance and those with
larger families. Family income supplement kicks in when one works above a certain
number of hours, and that addresses, for some but not all people, many of the poverty trap
issues that arise. We recognise that probably fewer than 5% on the live register face
significant issues in regard to the poverty trap. Others face the issue of hours versus days,
which is trapping people. We are seeking to address that in the implementation of the
review we discussed earlier.
With regard to income maintenance and social protection, there will always be a balance to
be struck between retaining the incentive to work through having a certain level of social
welfare that one does not exceed and recognising poverty through poverty measures and
thresholds, including the 60% threshold.
The financial incentive is not the only issue that arises for those who face the poverty trap
because issues arise over education, skills, training, etc. If they were addressed, it would
allow people to enter the workforce and progress upwards.
Deputy Anthony Lawlor: Mr. Dillon stated one reason for the delay in implementing the
report from 2007 was the comments from the social partners. Can we have copies of those
comments?
Mr. David Dillon: Yes; they date from 2007.
Deputy Anthony Lawlor: I have met a number of the social partners. Others have not
responded to me at all. Could the comments be supplied to me in the next week?
52
Mr. David Dillon: Yes.
Vice Chairman: I thank the witnesses for attending, for being so frank and giving us such
valuable information. I appreciate it. I thank Ms Stack and Ms Gleeson in particular for
making the presentations.
The joint committee adjourned at 11.20 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 28 March
2012.
53
Appendix G
Questions No: 16 & 102
Ref No: 20628-12
20672-12
To ask the Minister for Social Protection if she will explain her rationale for changing the
jobseeker's payment from a six day week to over a five day a week in view of the fact that
it will act as a disincentive to work; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
- Richard Boyd Barrett.
For ORAL answer on Wednesday, 25th April, 2012.
To ask the Minister for Social Protection the reasons, as effective from July 2012, the level
of payment for a part time worker in receipt of jobseeker's benefit will be based on a five
day week rather than the current six day week, but that this new rule will not apply to part
time workers in receipt of jobseeker's allowance whose payment will remain based on six
days; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
- Anthony Lawlor.
For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 25th April, 2012.
REPLY
I propose to take Questions 16 & 102 together.
In the last four years the numbers in receipt of a jobseeker‟s payment who are also
working on a part-time or casual basis has increased by almost 200%. At the end of March
54
2012 there were some 84,118 people in this situation on the Live Register and some
41,008 of these were claiming jobseeker‟s benefit.
In line with other Budget measures the effect of this measure will not impact on any
person whose sole income is from social welfare. It will only apply to those who have
earned additional income from working some days during the week.
The effect of this measure will be to reduce the contribution from jobseeker‟s benefit to the
weekly amount of total income and help towards a reduction in the reliance on the welfare
system among those who currently avail of a mix of welfare and earned income. As a
savings measure, the change will reduce costs within the jobseeker‟s benefit scheme but
the scheme will continue to deliver incentives towards additional employment for parttime and casual workers. It is important to note that the measure applies to jobseeker‟s
benefit only and that recipients of jobseeker‟s benefit may opt for jobseeker‟s allowance,
which is subject to a means test.
Entitlement to jobseeker‟s benefit is based, inter alia, on the claimant being unemployed
for three days in any period of six days with benefit being paid at a flat rate, irrespective of
earnings. Jobseeker‟s allowance is also based on satisfaction of „three in six‟ criteria but
entitlement is thereafter determined by reference to weekly means. Therefore the
jobseeker‟s allowance scheme takes account of the earnings of part-time and casual
workers, via means reduction in respect of any day in which they have earnings from
employment.
ENDS
55