A front page story from the DomPost is headlined, "Agency tells worker she is better off on benefit."
Her ex-employer has obviously gone to the press, appalled by this. Because she was a good worker he had increased her pay from $10-25 an hour to $11-50 giving her a maximum weekly income of $402-50 plus the accommodation benefit. She told the press she wanted to spend more time with her child and that WINZ told her she would be better off if she left the job. She was also having trouble getting babysitters.
"I want to enjoy being with my baby while she is so young - I won't be able to have that experience again."
Well neither will all those mothers who go back to work so she can stay home. That's the crux of the matter. Those who don't plan and don't mind taking welfare get subbed by others prepared to take responsibility for their choices.
Not to mention the employer loses a good worker. She plans to return to work eventually. Let's hope so. Not working is fairly habit-forming.
As for WINZ, I've heard this before. Most recently when the mother of a boy turning 18 was told he would be better off on the dole than working part-time at Burger King (while also attending a course). She was about to lose his family support payment and he didn't earn enough to give her the equivalent. Fortunately she rejected the idea and so did the boy, preferring to earn his own money.
Mum jailed for letting a 10 year old go for a walk
47 minutes ago
8 comments:
I think the real scandal is that Kiwi workers are paid such low wages that it might conceivably be a better deal to go on a benefit. And let's face it, being a beneficiary is hardly the high life.
What is ACT going to do to raise wages? Are they going to keep the ERA and strengthen collective bargaining rights, or are they going to continue down the same old track of stripping rights from workers that has done so much to make us a low wage economy?
Low wages are one indirect result of government intervention and taxation.
They are also the result, in some cases, of greedy employers. The best way to improve that situation is still competition.
tane
Tax cuts will increase `take home' pay for even the lowest paid workers.
Tane has zilch understand of what pushes wages up. It is increasing the number of jobs so that it is harder to finder to find workers. As the number of jobs needing filling wages are bid up. How do you increase the number of jobs? One is to reduce taxes on business so they have more to invest in expasion.
Oh, no cry Labour. Business is evil and must be punished. So that doesn't happen. Govt. can only raise wages by getting out of the way. But since Tane doesn't know a thing about economics she assumes that the way to raise wages is interference as the questions imply.
Lindsay, you could have written a much better post on this if only you mentioned the cost of childcare in the mix, as that is the crux of the issue. If you are getting $400 a week and spending $250 a week on childcare, even with the OSCAR and the TAS subsidy you are still better off on a benefit even with the loss of the IWP.
This story is a classic example as to why Government should be funding the 20 hours free childcare policy properly.
Hi there i was looking at this and was also wondering if anyone could help me. I am on the DPB and was working, now i had my specail benefit deducted, as it happens i have had a accident and cant work! ACC are offering me loss of wages but WINZ said i cant accept, even thou i can earn $4160 in my fincial year and have only earnt $1000 and my renewnal is due in a month , can someone please help?
Anon, you could try http://www.accesssupport.
co.nz/aboutus.html
for ACC problems
or your local Citizens Advice Bureau for a WINZ advocate
but I doubt you can get a benefit and loss of earnings compo.
Hope you get back on your feet soon.
supert it is possible to get both ACC payments and winz payments. If you care to leave your email address I`ll correspond offline....
Post a Comment