Deny The Passenger [Updated]


This afternoon.


Pandemic Unemployment Payment (



This morning.




Sponsored Link

220 thoughts on “Deny The Passenger [Updated]

  1. somenerd

    Surely it’s passport control records as retained by customs that is being shared with Revenue?

    1. Rob_G

      There’s no PPS number on the passport, is there(?) So how would that work?

      I presume the information is coming from the DSW people in the airport who are asking people the reason for their travel, as was reported here a few weeks ago.

      1. somenerd

        Can’t imagine anyone is willingly parting with their PPSN on demand while on a boozy week to Santorini? So my guess is they are cross referencing the customs data with the department of social protection and making some educated guesses.

        1. The Old Boy

          I agree with some of this assessment. Anyone who isn’t a Garda/Airport police officer or an immigration officer wandering around an airport demanding peoples’ particulars is going to be told to get stuffed more often than not.

          I’d say information hasn’t come from the airport at all, by whatever means. It’s much more likely that these are the figures of the usual stopped payments as a result of the investigations carried out by Department of Social Protection officers at claimants’ addresses when they suspect that claimants may in fact be living abroad. It happens all the time.

          1. somenerd

            Wouldn’t say they have the boots on the ground to cut off 104 payments due to investigations at addresses. On a side note – how do those investigations make that determination anyway?

            this is probably a data exercise – but it is curious how definitive they are being with cut payments. They seem pretty certain they’ve identified the right people. And I agree passport data does not directly link to PPSN and would be tricky in many instances to make the link correctly.

    2. Charger Salmons

      If you don’t mind me saying so – and I have been saying it rather a lot lately – if you allow the government to get away with anything it wants and you’re happy with a media that condones this then that is precisely what they’re going to do.
      A week on from Mehole returning from the EU summit having reportedly committed Ireland to €16billion it’s as if the entire event never happened.
      Week after week Ireland’s Covid-19 infection rate goes nowhere.
      And the number of people in hospital with it in the entire country would occupy a single ward.
      And yet the population shrugs its shoulders and says ” ah shure, but they know what they’re doing ” and then watches gormlessly as the bill they will eventually have to pay clocks up by the billions.
      So what do you expect ? They’re going to continue extracting the urine out of you as they always have done.
      Either start protesting or quit your snivelling.

  2. Joe

    Varadkar says the Dept gets the information from the airport. Dublin airport says it doesn’t provide any information! Someone somewhere is telling lies. Clarification is urgently needed as to who is illegally sharing passenger information, how the information is being supplied and under what laws citizens are being targeted by what sounds like a serious breach of GDPR .

  3. Niall

    No PPS numbers on passport but you do need to provide a PPS number to get one. You need to provide your name, DoB and passport number to the airlines to check in so presumably this detail is coming from the airlines. Also I assume airlines provide passport numbers etc to Gardaí so they can ensure nobody is entering / leaving the country that they would be concerned about.

  4. Matt Pilates

    If you’re in receipt of job benefit SW you’re also obliged to tell DESP if you’re out of the country; i.e., therefore unavailable for work. “Looking for work in Paris Disneyland” is not an excuse.

    Dunno if COVID-19 payments work same way though?

    Bear in mind that staff at Dublin Airport have a cosy relationship with the media too – what celeb/crim is booked on what/when, so it could be pure eyeballing of neighbours names on the same basis.

    1. Johnny Green

      no idea but,in NY a lot people left to Florida to care for parents,if say you felt obliged take care the folks in Portugal,would you have let the nanny state know ?

      1. Rob_G

        I see – I suppose it isn’t a “nanny state” when they are paying out the scratch, but it is a “nanny state” when they ask, not unreasonably, how you are supposed to be looking for work if you aren’t currently residing in the country?

          1. Rob_G

            Not one that entitles one to the COVID-19 payment, no; they have different payments for that.

            I’m laughing at your use of the term “nanny state”, which you don’t seem to understand

          2. Clampers Outside

            You answered your own question there Johnny.

            Covid payments are for loss of work.

            Care giver payments are not Covid payments.

            Off to Portugal, and mind them.

          3. Johnny Green

            Loads people in NY went to the ‘states’ their folks live in-so if you live in NY and get the NY covid money,but were worried about your folks in Fla. you could go there,do their groceries pick up their meds,while receiving the NY covid money,without having get permission from your school teacher…

          4. Johnny Green

            so do i have return my irish covid pmts ?
            like what happens next-do they have ‘evidence’.
            are they planning clawing this back.

          5. sidhe

            to be fair to Clampers, whether you agree with him or not, does frequently have a point and is able to make it clearly and coherently…

            which is something you don’t always pull off with the same aplomb.

          6. Johnny Green

            yeah whatever,tansgender and gender nonconforming people,the obsession of all new dads.

    2. Rob_G

      You are allowed leave the country on holidays for up to two weeks a year on a regular social welfare (i think); for the COVID payment, you aren’t.

        1. Rob_G

          Of course it’s lawful; you can still leave the country, you will just no longer be entitled to the COVID payment. Otherwise we could be paying out €350 a week to people who have moved back to Spain or Italy or wherever indefinitely, and then sure where would be?

          1. one username please tw

            How do you argue that Rob?
            Why is it ok to discriminate against people travelling abroad to temporarily check in on sick or elderly relatives in one scheme of assistance and not in another?

          2. Janet, dreams of big guns

            or get an urgent medical procedure like myself, because the government suspended my job not only am I to live off less than my wage but also I have lost my right to go to Paris and back or I loose that pittance, it’s scandalous

          3. Janet, dreams of big guns

            I’m not sick I have a condition that needs surveillance,I will get very sick if I don’t stay on top of it, last time I couldn’t get back to France in time I nearly died in Beaumont and I picked up a secondary infection in that filthy hospital that landed me in bed for two months so forgive me if I’d rather continue my private care with people who know what they are doing, I’m not going to scam an illness benifit, I have full-time job, one of the conditions of accepting it was the knowledge I travel occasionally for treatment.

          4. Clampers Outside

            I hear ya. I can’t see an issue with payments being switched to Illness Benefit if a trip is needed, and switched back to covid on return.

            Sorry to hear it Janet, hope all well presently

          5. Clampers Outside

            Care giver payments is not considered an out of work payment. They are a support payment.

          6. Rob_G

            Because it would be too open to abuse – 1-in-6 of the population of Ireland is foreign-born, some or all of whom could claim to be just popping out to check on a sick granny, and never come back, all the while getting the COVID payment paid into their bank accounts.

          7. Janet, dreams of big guns

            what about the 5/ 6 fupped over by the governments handling of the pandemic ?

          8. Clampers Outside

            Then they should be on illness benefit not Covid payments.

            And I don’t know of any travel restrictions for persons on illness benefit who must travel for those same medical reasons.

          9. Clampers Outside

            That’s a link to clampdown on tax avoidance/loopholes. That’s a good thing we surely all agree on…. so I’m not sure what the point is in posting it as a response to Rob’s comment? Even Rob would be happy with that clampdown.

          10. Rob_G

            @ Janet, I don’t know, I don’t imagine that 5/6 of the population feel that way; perhaps the fact that you were prevented from availing of both the Irish social welfare system and the French healthcare system simultaneously has coloured your outlook somewhat in this regard.

          11. Janet, dreams of big guns

            I have no wish to avail of an Irish social welfare system, I will collect covid payments until the government deel my job safe to return to as I’m entitled to. I have in fact private healthcare here however my one in a million medical condition is followed by a french specialist, translating the case history alone for an inept medical service hear is not really in my interests, what colours my view is the assumption that covid payment is some kind of choice or gouging and it should negate my choice to travel,
            that it is assumed you are scaming by default

          12. Rob_G

            @ Janet – not “scamming”, just no longer entitled to.

            You suggest that it would be too complicated to translate your medical notes from French, and I’m sure it would be: how would you expect the dept of SW to translate and sort the genuine from the bogus of all of the documentation submitted in French, Bulgarian, Spanish, etc for people who claim to have valid reasons for leaving the country, and still be entiltled to the COVID-19 payment?

            Impossible to administer, so I’m not surprised they didn’t try to implement such a system.

          13. Janet, dreams of big guns

            maybe they should have thought of that before joining Europe,
            why should people on covid not even have the same rights people on unemployment do ?

          14. Clampers Outside

            Because jobseekers is a statutory payment.

            Covid is an emergency payment for a period of emergency only.

          15. Clampers Outside

            Your rights haven’t changed. You still have every right to your jobseekers. The covid payment is an emergency additional payment.

          16. Janet, dreams of big guns

            why should I take a significant cut when covid is only paying my rent as it is, my savings are paying for food and bills,it’s punative

          17. Rob_G

            I imagine you weren’t complaining that the COVID payment was a different (larger) amount than the JSA/JSB payments; but now that it comes with different conditions, it’s a problem all of a sudden.

          18. Janet, dreams of big guns

            my covid payment was never larger than my wage, it has never been ideal and I would much rather be both at work and following up my medical care,
            assuming makes an ass out of you

          19. Rob_G

            I’m not assuming anything- if you want a payment that comes with all the automatic entitlements of a statutory payment, apply for a statutory payment.

            If you want to apply for (non-statutory) COVID payment – go right ahead, but be forewarned that there could be extra conditions attached.

          20. Janet, dreams of big guns

            hard to agree when you are flat on your back in pain for the last five days

        2. Clampers Outside

          @Mary Covid payment is not a statutory payment like jobseekers. Its an emergency payment.

          If you want to travel, come off the covid payment and go on jobseekers payment. Simples.

          1. Clampers Outside

            Although you won’t be paid for the two weeks of self-isolation on your return…. Just read that bit on

        1. Rob_G

          As far as I understand it, you do, yes. If you inform them, you won’t run into any problems with the payment being stopped if the holiday coincides with your sign-on day, etc.

    3. Clampers Outside

      If on COVID Payment you cannot continue to receive the payment if you leave the country.

      It is not like jobseekers where you can take a holiday and still get the payment.

      Also, COVID payment is not a statutory right like jobseekers payment. It is simply an emergency payment.

      1. Cian

        I disagree. The Rules only say you are resident in the state. Holidays aren’t mentioned.

        Going on holidays doesn’t change your residency.
        Moving to a different country does.

          1. Cian

            What is the issue?

            Have any people going on a two week holiday (or to get medical care in France) lost their PUP?

            Or is it just people that
            (a) weren’t entitled to it in the first place;
            (b) people who were entitled to it while they were resident in Ireland but are no longer entitled if they stop their Irish residency?

          1. Cian

            Can you provide a link?
            Yes, you need to be resident.
            But you can be resident in Ireland AND go on holidays abroad for 2 weeks.

  5. Kate

    Perhaps it’s garda/social protection placing “a person of interest” details at airport that is suspected of fiddling. I wouldn’t have a problem with this — over 370 have had cordif payments stopped with many supplying false addresses . You have nothing to fear if abiding the law.

    1. Anne

      There’s no fiddling required. You just need to take a holiday. Jesus do people read anything anymore.

          1. one username please tw

            Great insight on many topics.
            Robert Reich has been on fire recently by the way Anne.

          2. Choose one

            Please stop changing your username. You’ve had so many. It’s not really fair on other users of the site who don’t change theirs.

            Choose one (how about Tom Wong?) and then stick with it. Thanks

    2. Andrew

      Kate, this is the real issue. The government in introducing this payment rushed it and as a result, millions in payments have left the country with people who don’t live here. Many involved in people trafficking too where they control people here. Thousands of bank accounts have been frozen now but the loss and abuse has been massive and they don’t want to admit it. They also don’t want to point the finger at those committing the crimes for some reason.
      It has very little to do with people going on holiday.

      1. SOQ


        There most definitely people who headed home once the work dried up, And as the payment was so easy to get- sure why wouldn’t they apply for free money beforehand? This sort of fraud is the reason why pre CoVid-19, they reverted to only paying dole out of post offices.

        You can be certain that every non Irish name has been separated into a different list and they are working their way through it- including anyone with the surname of Varadkar.

        1. Anne

          Not being resident in the state & going on a holiday are two different things. If the issue was people not living in the state, why not say that instead of this targeting of people taking a holiday?

          1. SOQ

            IMO? As a cover- CoVid-19 claimants must be resident in the state, irrespective of their nationality. There are very few people paying everything out of €350 a week who could afford to go on holidays.- unless they had it all saved beforehand in which case I commend them on their money management skills.

        1. Cian

          When did Leo mention holidays? He is talking about people no longer living in the country.
          He acknowledges that people on Job Seekers allowance can take 2 weeks holidays.
          He then mentioned people not genuinely living in the country.

          1. Anne

            Listen to the Morning Ireland clip above with Paul Murphy. Sibce you haven’t bothered listening, I’ll quote the presenter for you. “The dept of social protection this morning confirmed that the pandemic payment is not being paid to those who reside elsewhere or those who go on HOLIDAYS abroad”.

            What the giddy fupp do you think everyone is up in arms about? They want everyone who ever lived here once to get a payment off the state or something forever or till there’s a vaccine ? Go back to sleep.

            This is why this place is annoying at the best of times. People not bothering their hoop reading or listening to anything but coming at you like you’re making sh*t up for the lols.

          2. Cian

            @Anne, so it wasn’t Leo? it was a presenter?

            You are as guilty of anyone else of “making sh*t up for the lols.”

  6. Panty Christ

    You are required to put your pps number on passport application. Your passport is a smart document, it gets scanned, the passport number is used to identify your pps from a database. Simple illegal sharing of data by the state.

    1. SOQ

      Nobody has said all of these people hold Irish passports? There is quite a sizable number of people who live within the state who do not.

      1. one username please tw

        Then they can’t travel to non Schengen countries. I don’t think they would get in. Only UK if even that.

      2. Cian

        You need to provide a passport number/identify card number to get a PPS (if you are not Irish).

  7. B53216

    They used flight records against a girl in Cork a few years ago who was claiming social welfare in Ireland but “living” in London. That case went to court and she was found guilty. Whatever records they are using were considered legal evidence in court.

    1. one username please tw

      That’s fraud, not going abroad to care for a sick relative etc. Try to stay in touch with the topic.

  8. Vanessanelle

    Making it up as he goes along

    Why would his visit to the TWIP couch be any different to what he’s been at for years

    Even through the Acting Government phase

    Maybe that’s it
    He’s just always Acting

  9. Ron

    Some key questions to be answered. Did they go specifically to Dublin Airport to meet with SPECIFIC individuals where they had “reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a contravention of this Act” as is required by the legislations, or did they all just rock on up to Dublin Airport and randomly start interrogating private citizens where they had no reasonable grounds to suspect any of those private individuals were in contravention of the act?

    Second question, what data is being shared with Social Welfare Inspectors, and on what legal basis is it collected and shared?

    Third question, are we using Garda resources to chaperone Social Welfare Inspectors as they interrogate private citizens going about the course of their daily business?

    In the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012 three specific provisions were made to enhance and support fraud and control measures. One of those measures was: specific powers of enquiry for Social welfare inspectors at Ports and Airports (Section 17. Section 17 states:

    (16B) Where, while attending at any port for the purposes of ensuring compliance with this Act, a social welfare inspector—
    (a) has reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a contravention of this Act, and
    (b) is accompanied by—
    (i) a member of the Garda Síochána,
    (ii) an officer of Customs and Excise, or
    (iii) an immigration officer,
    the social welfare inspector concerned may, on production of his or her certificate of appointment—
    (i) question and make enquiries of a person who is a passenger at the port and is preparing to embark, or is embarking, from, or has landed in, the State in relation to any matter that concerns compliance with this Act, and
    (ii) request such person to produce to that inspector any documents or other information as that inspector may reasonably require for the purposes of establishing the identity, and, where appropriate, the habitual residence, of that person.”,

    1. one username please tw

      randomly start interrogating private citizens

      – that’s what it looks like Ron? I might say it seems more like a sort of headline getting exercise to get the COVIDIOT Vote than a real policy or programme. Typical FFG Soundbite stuff.

      1. Broadbag

        What on earth is a ‘private citizen’ are they distinct from ‘public citizens’, or ‘the public’ as they might be more commonly called? Are they special people who are above the law and can’t be asked to abide by simple rules and not rip off emergency payments which are given out in good faith for people who actually need them?

        1. Ron

          Deal with the substantive issues being asked and stop seething at the teeth with anger because the chancers you so readily clap for have been caught engaging in dodgy behaviour

          1. Broadbag

            Ha! ‘Deal with the substantive issues being asked” like you did further down the thread by ignoring the content of the post in favour of attacking the poster:

            ”Did you always hate poor people, blah, blah, blah…”

            you complete and utter hypocrite!

          2. Ron

            I’ve no idea what it is your suffering from, but I bet it’s hard to pronounce. You haven’t a clue what your talking about but you see everyone getting excited about something Govt did, and like a loyal dog, you just run around in a circle, bark and wag your tail accordingly. just happy to be there. Good boy.

          3. Broadbag

            Ron, I won’t stoop to your level, but it’s truly very low to imply someone has a mental illness just because they call you out on your hypocrisy and constant ad-hominem raging against posters rather than the content of the post.

            The only one suffering here is you.

          4. Ron

            I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to be as below average as you lol.

            They say ignorance is bliss. Is it?

          5. Broadbag

            What a witty rejoinder Ron, a step up from jokes about mental health and lapdogs, congrats, you’ve come a long way, one day you’ll be capable of discussing things with the adults, until then keep hiding behind pathetic insults.

    2. Anne

      “for the purposes of establishing the identity, and, where appropriate, the habitual residence, of that person.”,

      And there’s the crux of that. ” I reside in Ireland. Toodles” is all you’ve to say. Usually you can confirm that with a return ticket.

      A holiday is not contravention of this act then.

      1. Cian

        Just because you have an Irish passport doesn’t mean you reside in Ireland or are entitled to Irish welfare payments.

  10. Broadbag

    Were people not wailing and clutching their pearls a few weeks ago after spotting revenue or social welfare staff at airports with their clipboards asking people where they were off to etc, presume this is what he means by ‘gets information from the airports’. They can’t force you to answer but they can ask. It’s amazing how outraged people get by any attempt to clamp down on chancers or welfare fraudsters, almost like we’re a country full of gougers, or they think this money doesn’t come from their taxes.

    1. Rob_G

      that is 100% how I understood the phrase “from airports”

      Not surprised that serial sponger Reada Cronin is the one leading the charge against probity in the SW system.

      1. one username please tw

        How is she a serial sponger Rob? You mean in a Johnny Ronan type of way looking for a bailout for a failed business as Giggidy highlighted here the other day? That’s what you mean right?

        1. Rob_G

          Actually you are right, I was mixing her up with Violet Wynne – apologies to Deputy Cronin.

          “You mean in a Johnny Ronan type of way looking for a bailout for a failed business as Giggidy highlighted here the other day? That’s what you mean right?”

          – genuinely no clue what you are talking about, or how it would apply to this situation.

    2. Ron

      Did you always hate poor people or was it a journey? Did something happen to make you hate them or is that just the way you always were?

      1. Janet, dreams of big guns

        I have asked him that before, it’s a viseral hate , this isn’t about poor people alone though, many people work in an industry example tourism, that you cannot work from home , but are to be discriminated against because of a situation out of their control

        1. Rob_G

          [sigh] – no it isn’t. You just seem to have some sort of absolutist, libertarian view on the rights of the individual, but combined with an insistence on all-encompassing state apparatus that always pays out, no questions asked.

          1. Janet, dreams of big guns

            I have never suggested payments are made no questions asked, I object to the inept way the government is handling this aspect among others of the whole pandemic

      2. Broadbag

        @Ron: In my experience poor people can’t afford to take holidays, they’re too busy making sure they can put food on the table or pay their rent or mortgage, or keep the electricity meter going, you obviously know a much wealthier cohort of ‘poor’ than I do.

        Did you always love people scamming money from the state and taking it from people who really need it, or was it a journey?

      1. one username please tw


        Anyone I don’t like – chancer
        Anyone who votes SF – chancer
        Anyone who opposed water charges – chancer*

        *these are just examples of chancers, other chancers may exist, terms and conditions apply.

      2. Broadbag

        @Anne: Probably, if they’re supposed to be available for work but aren’t because they’re on a beach in Toremolinos, then that voids their claim to the Covid supports. If it was a holiday booked before loss of income then they should probably be exempt, if not they should abide by the terms they signed up to, no?

        1. one username please tw


          The terms should be changed to allow people take a break in line with the rules of other welfare payments. That’s what would happen in any humane society not governed by trolls, fishing for likes and retweets in the vain hope of fooling COVIDIOTS into thinking this is leadership.

          1. Clampers Outside

            They can come off covid payments and apply for jobseekers payments and take their holiday. Simples.

          2. Anne

            You’re the simples here. All holiday entitlements suspended. On jobseekers & Pandemic Unemployment Payment. They were treated the same up to recently, as in you could avail of a 2 week holiday without penalty if you wanted to.

          3. Clampers Outside

            They were not treated the same until recently. Never at any point could you get COVID if you left the country.

        2. Anne

          These “terms” re no holiday were only added in recently & no one advised.

          Available for work me hoop. Half the country shut down. There is NO work for a lot of people still. People could have holidays booked pre covid. They’re not getting refunds as flights are allowed. It’s beyond the civic duty of people to be made subsidise the likes of Ryanair IMO.

          It just amazes me what conditions are enforced & what aren’t. E.g. Ryanair have yet to refund people for flights that were cancelled since March & aren’t being made to refund people when the advice is don’t travel.

          1. Clampers Outside

            It is incorrect.

            No holiday is not new, it was always there in that it was always the case that you had to be in the country to receive a covid payment.

          2. Broadbag

            Agreed on Ryanair, govt should be leaning on them. ‘Advice is don’t travel’ so airlines should pay up and yet people ignoring this advice to go on holidays should still get the Covid payment? Bit of a contradiction there.

          3. Clampers Outside

            The no holiday thing for covid was always there as it was always a condition that you were in the country in order to receive it.

          4. class wario

            what does it achieve preventing people who are possibly left without work and unable to find new work due to covid-19 from receiving the payment due to them taking already booked holidays to destinations the government has deemed ‘safe’ to travel to?

          5. Anne

            @ Clampers..

            “No holiday is not new” WRONG.

            See the post above at the top of this from broadsheet. It’s the bit in bold from Dept of Social Protection –
            “Holiday entitlement rules are the same as those for jobseekers payments”

            Now, see this screen shot here.. they changed the rules re holidays very recently for those on Jobseekers & PUP.


            Go on click on it & come up & apologise for making sh*t up.

            There isn’t some slew of jobs that suddenly became available, in the middle of a pandemic.. they just want people spending money “staycation” whilst also subsidising the likes of Ryanair for flights that won’t be refunded.

          6. Clampers Outside

            The Jobseekers was updated to equal the rules for covid. Covid didn’t change, jobseekers did.

          7. Clampers Outside

            Clearly I was wrong, it was not written in at the beginning >_<

            My coat got Anne

          8. Rob_G

            Well, I know the first thing that I would do, having been temporarily laid off from my job in the midst of a global pandemic, would be to book to a foreign holiday as far away as possible…

          9. class wario

            so if you’ve booked a holiday well in advance, have lost your job and have no chance of finding replacement work in the short term and the government have left airports operate as normal and deemed your holiday destination as a ‘safe’ place to go…you should stay home as penance to the welfare gods?

          10. Rob_G

            To a any of the several dozen people who are travelling that those very specific criteria apply to – yes, I do indeed feel bad for them.

          11. class wario

            the only extremely specific thing there is the booking in advance. the rest is the lived reality for many people as a result of covid-19. what jobs are available for these people to jump into at a moment’s notice? this is 100% playing to the FG gallery and 0% practical reality

          12. Rob_G

            well, if the ‘booking far in advance’ in removed as a criteria, than my original point stands.

            While it’s unfortunate that anyone would lose out, anyone who has booked a holiday abroad since the start of the pandemic would know already how rapidly-evolving the situation is, and the risk that of their plans coming a-cropper, given that the situation could change from one week to the next.

          13. class wario

            the ‘situation changing’ because of the many unknown elements surrounding a global pandemic is a bit different from the situation changing because the mean spirited tories in charge decided to do a 180 on a point of policy so the poors don’t lose the run of themselves

          14. Daisy Chainsaw

            100% agree Anne. If you booked a family holiday last year and paid off in installments while you and your partner were in full time employment why shouldn’t you take that 2 weeks, all inclusive, family holiday to Spain? By not going the family loses every penny because they won’t be entitled to a refund because there’s no ban on flying.

            When a government can find €50k extra to pay 3 already well paid Junior Ministers, surely the odd €350 here and there is not that big an issue.

            Welfare cheat campaigns cheat us all.

  11. cecil

    No one has had their payment stopped, this is yet another lie by Vradkar to brow beat the public into not travelling.
    He’s worse than Trump.

    1. SOQ

      So they added the ‘are genuinely seeking work’ clause on the website but never told anyone?

    2. Cian

      That is the “how to apply section”.
      If you have already applied and are in receipt does your T&Cs change too?

  12. SOQ

    Actually Paul Murphy’s question- “Why are we now checking for jobs of those leaving at airports, but not checking for Covid in those arriving?” pretty much nails it.

      1. Charger Salmons

        6,000 people a day arrive by air into Ireland.
        How do you propose checking them all for Covid-19 ?

        1. Broadbag

          Restrict inward travel from Covid hotspots, make it a pre-requisite to travel that you would have to carry proof of a negative test in order to enter the country, wouldn’t catch everyone but it would make a large dent.

        2. SOQ

          @ Charger- you cannot test everyone no but you can do your best to ensure they self isolate for 14 days if from a hot spot- although how they are suppose to quarantine in a hotel is questionable.

          1. Charger Salmons

            On the other hand people have been flying into Ireland every day of the pandemic from hotspots like the USA and the infection rate has consistently fallen to a miniscule level throughout the period of their arrivals.
            In which case why bother continuing with the ludicrously resricted number of countries which require quarantining on return ?

  13. Formerly known as

    Back in the day, a group used to claim the dole in Ireland, get the bus (and ferry) to London, claim the dole there, come back. Very entrepreneurial.

    1. GiggidyGoo

      I don’t think they had to go to London. Just get the ferry to Holyhead or Fishguard. No need to go any further. The walk-on fare was only £12 or so.

      The buses you refer to were, I think Slattery’s (Kerry-based), who were competing with the Airlines and were
      bringing people Ireland-London-Ireland. Wasn’t to do with welfare payments. was just a cost-effective way for people to come home for a while. Then Ryanair started.

  14. Oh...

    Um, do you actually have to answer any of the questions and can they prevent you from travelling?

    As I understand it, they must have a belief that you specifically are looking to breach the guidelines around the Covid PUP, so the fact that you’re travelling abroad isn’t sufficient?

    They can’t actually detain you, doing so would infringe your right to travel under 40.4 of the constitution unless it’s a matter of national security or you’re out on bail and so on?

  15. Vanessanelle

    Spoke to an SC there this morning who is currently in Spain
    And claimed PUP when Chancery came to a standstill
    No appearances No €s
    No new case work either, certainly not till September/ October – if we’re even getting stuff listed at all

    Good luck trying it on in DAP with this lad when he comes back

  16. Clampers Outside

    This is ridiculous.

    Yes, the listed summary of criteria has an additional line stating “are genuinely seeking work”, but this was always a criteria.

    For example, someone who permanently lost their job due to covid needed, and always needed, to be genuinely seeking work to continue receiving covid payments.

    What the website has done is clarify for those who clearly had no idea this is, and always was, a requirement to receive the payment.

    I’m a bit surprised at the posting of the July 12th v July 27th tweet as if there was a real change in criteria.
    It’s not. It’s an update of the summary list.
    It, the tweet, is simply stoking outrage of the Ill informed, nothing more.

    This is all just getting silly now.

    1. Broadbag

      +1 but the permanently outraged will be along to shout some whataboutery at you in a minute.

    2. Anne

      So if you’re business was shut down & isn’t reopen until & unless phase 4 of reopening goes ahead, you’re to try “maintain the relationship” with your employee but actively looking for the imaginary slew of available jobs in the middle of a global pandemic.

      How do you maintain a relationship with your employee but look for other (nonexistent) work at the same time?

      1. Janet, dreams of big guns

        and don’t dare leave the country because you might be needed within 24hours for said imaginary job

      2. SOQ

        That is a fair point. The CoVid-19 payment is for those who were temporarily laid off. If they have not been notified by their employer then they can reasonably assume that they have a job to go back to.

        There is nothing stopping them looking for another job in the meantime but it will most likely harm their relationship with their current employer if it becomes known.

        1. Anne

          Yeah.. I thought the government wanted people to maintain the relationship with the employer. We’re not yet even at phase 4, but people are supposed to be applying for other (non existent) jobs?

          Staycation in the rain, apply for non existent jobs, forgo your money for holidays booked pre covid & don’t dicky up the house whatever do you. Goooooowls.

        2. Clampers Outside

          The requirement to look for work for those temporarily laid off is considered fulfilled if you have a relationship with an employer, surely that is obvious.

      3. Clampers Outside

        1. If you are on the Wage Subsidy Scheme you have that relationship with your employer maintained.

        2. If your employer did not do the WSS, and said you were temporarily laid off due to COVID, then you are on the COVID payment, and still have a relationship with your employer but only one that has a higher risk of not returning to work if your employer situation changes further.

        3. If you were permanently let go, you get COVID (and just like jobseekers) are required to be genuinely seeking work.

        Scenario 1 and 2 have a relationship with an employer.
        Scenario 3 does not and requires genuinely seeking work to get the COVID payment.

        1. Anne

          ” If your employer did not do the WSS, and said you were temporarily laid off due to COVID, then you are on the COVID payment, and still have a relationship with your employer but only one that has a higher risk of not returning to work if your employer situation changes further”
          I can’t make sense of this gibberish tbh. What’s the higher risk? Did you do some statistical analysis there in the 2 minutes since your comment.

          You can’t maintain a relationship if you’re let go though. Shrewd analysis there.

          If you’re employer couldn’t afford to partake in the wage subsidy scheme, you may still return to your job. Again, shrewd… but why in the name of God should you be looking for another job if you’re being told we’ll take you back when we’re allowed reopen. Don’t answer that Clampers please. You’ve already been spouting nonsense about jobseekers & PUP payments & that you were never allowed a holiday on PUP.

          Right at the top of the post from Broadsheet it states, from Dept Social Protection -“holiday entitlement rules are the same as those for Jobseeker’s payment.”

          Like do you really not mind looking like a fool who comes in all sure of everything & is completely wrong? No?

          1. Clampers Outside

            Clearly this is was wrong, it was not written and so likely not enforceable after all >_<

          2. Anne

            Yes you were. Like jobseekers. Both recently not allowed.

            Will you read the post from BS no? Do you just jump straight into to the comments?

          3. Clampers Outside

            The post shows that jobseekers was updated, not Covid, and now shows that covid is the same.

        1. wearnicehats

          Ironically most companies on the TWSS will bring back those employees who were earning the most and leave the rest on layoff. The reason is basically this:

          If you were paying an employee over €500 in January then their net pay is probably around €460. As an employer you get €350 of that back so it costs you €110 to get a week’s work out of the person

          If you employed a person on €120 a week in January you’ll get €100 of that back. If they’re doing the 10 or 11 hours that they were in January they’ll get the €120. But they’re sitting at home on €350 so pfffft. So, if you’re very lucky they’ll say, “ok, I’ll come back for €350” but as an employer that’s nuts because you only get €100 – it costs you €250 to employ someone. At the same time they’re going to have to work 20 hours in order for the employer to get their money’s worth out of someone who’ll wondering after a week what the hell they were thinking. Also, these days, it’s unlikely you’d have 20 hours to spare. SO as an employer you’ll just leave those guys where they are. The payment has been dropped to jobseekers level now so that may help over the coming weeks. You’ll also leave these guys alone because, when the redundancy act returns to normal, most if not all will be below the threshold to qualify.

          And Clampers – people on lay-off are still under their employment contract with the employer so the employer has to follow the same due process as they would normally in terms of dismissal. Where it is a grey area at the minute though is in terms of “new hires” getting the TWSS, I haven’t seen the legislation but I would have thought that it needed to contain some sort of caveat whereby an employer can’t hire new people if they have staff still on layoff

          Whatever you think of all this – at best it’s a clumsy way of trying to kick start people mentally in terms of getting back to reality.

          1. Anne

            “And Clampers – people on lay-off are still under their employment contract with the employer so the employer has to follow the same due process as they would normally in terms of dismissal”

            But you should be seeking other employment now according to the gov?

  17. Cian

    If you thought that was bad wait until you see S.I. No. 242/2020 – Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) (Amendment) (No. 9) (Absence from the State) Regulations 2020 (signed 10 July, 2020):

    They have redefined “holiday” for a jobseeker: It now reads:

    217. Notwithstanding section 249, a person who is absent from the State shall not be disqualified for receiving—
    (d) jobseeker’s benefit (including any increase thereof) for any period during which that person, or his or her qualified adult, is absent from the State—
      (i) on holiday, in accordance with the Covid-19 General Travel Advisory in operation by the Department of Foreign Affairs, in respect of the first two weeks of any such absence in a calendar year, or […]

    you are NOT entitled to Jobseekers for a 2-week holiday to Spain.

  18. class wario

    will they be enforcing this in ‘staycation’ hotspots across the country? round up some nefarious welfare abusers in west cork or kerry or somewhere

    1. Clampers Outside

      That shows Jo seekers updated to match covid. What’s your point in repeatedly pointing this out. This does not show that holidays were allowed when on PUP.

      1. Anne

        Yes it does. You were allowed 2 weeks holidays on both jobseekers & PUP up until recently.

        You said holidays were never allowed on pup, only jobseekers…& to apply for jobseekers if you want to go on holidays – simples according to you.

        You’re now not allowed a holiday even on jobseekers. You were previously allowed a holiday on both.
        Every single thing you’ve posted on this thread has been wrong.

          1. Anne

            Look at this for debate. Would you be bothered?

            Go on Jobseekers says he, if you want to go on a holiday, simples he says. (WRONG)
            You’d be wasting your time going on Jobseekers to avail of the payment on a holiday, as that’s recently been disallowed.

            Pandemic Unemployment Payment never allowed a holiday, he says (WRONG). It was the same holiday entitlements as Jobseekers up to recently.

            So yes, everything you said on this thread was WROOOOONG. Bar pointing out the obvious, that you don’t have a relationship with your employer if they let you go, and that you now can’t go on a holiday on PUP or jobseekers.

            Wrong advice all round Clampers. You’re likely to end up down in the Simon Community if you were to take any financial advice from you seriously.

          2. Clampers Outside

            I was wrong on the holiday with covid because it was not written.

            Nothing else I said is wrong.

    1. wearnicehats

      Anne – In response to the above – I Can’t “REPLY” any more

      “And Clampers – people on lay-off are still under their employment contract with the employer so the employer has to follow the same due process as they would normally in terms of dismissal”

      But you should be seeking other employment now according to the gov?

      In order to qualify for the PUP originally it was a stipulation that you applied for jobseekers within 6 weeks of applying for the PUP. This was, presumably, to incentivise people who had been put on lay-off. So after 6 weeks you were bound by the jobseeker rules in terms of employment. So to answer your question to Clampers – yes they should be seeking other employment

      When an employee is put on lay-off they are issued with a P45 so that they are removed from the PAYE system and the Revenue / DEASP can check against double claimants. The lay-off scenario in terms of contractual agreements was, originally, to protect employees in that it wasn’t indefinite -primarily to protect people’s right to redundancy after 4 weeks of layoff (before that was shelved). The contractual side of it works both ways. The employer must follow due process when dismissing an employee. The employee, however, is equally obliged to return to work when requested to do so. If they don’t then they can lose their job provided the terms of contract breach is met. The grey area these days is that someone sitting at home on €350 who is told to come back to work can claim ill health, stress, unsafe workplace etc much more easily now that they could before. Which is one of the reasons why the redundancy law had to be frozen to protect employers.

      1. Anne

        “In order to qualify for the PUP originally it was a stipulation that you applied for jobseekers within 6 weeks of applying for the PUP. ”

        Originally? PUP was extended though. I don’t quite get how if you are on lay off, and are told you can return to work, say on phase 4, and you are still on PUP, (not jobseekers) why in the world of god you should be looking for another job – imaginary and all that they are at the moment, all things considering.

        Jobseekers and PUP recipients should not be punished like this, when the likes of Ryanair won’t be held to task – both with refunds for cancelled flights, and with advice not to travel (for flights that are currently taking off).

        It’s amazing isn’t it, that these sort of amendments and restrictions on ordinary people can be enacted at will, yet Ryanair aren’t made refund people.

        1. Janet, dreams of big guns

          plus no one in their right mind applied for jobseekers in those first six weeks, stipulation or not, because you have a job to go back to and because you could see where they were going with that one

          1. Broadbag

            ”stipulation or not” pretty much sums up the issue, the Irish public at large (including the lesser spotted ‘private citizens’) are happy to game the system as far as they can push it, when the system pushes back they scream in indignation that their human rights are being breached and how dare the people giving them the emergency monetary support check that it’s going to the people who really need it.

          2. Janet, dreams of big guns

            Why would you apply for jobseekers when you have a job and the goal posts keep changing, including the length of the covid payment/ shutdown ? You are hardly gaming a system if you are entitled to an emergency payment.

          3. Janet, dreams of big guns

            You seem to think it’s some kind of choice to be on covid ? I’m lucky to have savings, I don’t know how people are managing without but they are not an eternal fountain and the only thing stopping me earning my living is a government who can’t tell their arse from their elbow, they cannot shut down the country without compensating this, a country they may have been able to keep open ( or only needed to shut down briefly ) if they had properly funded the health system in the first place

          4. italia'90

            I don’t mean to wee wee you off any more than you are entitled to be, but the big irony here is that there are EU nationals flying into Dublin every 6 weeks to receive medical care and return home with €6,000 worth of MS medication. They haven’t been stopped or interrogated by DEASP investigators.
            What a surprise!

          5. Janet, dreams of big guns

            I’m glad these people are getting care they need but nope not surprised,
            and to continue my last comment not for a second am I leaving myself open to the failed abomination that is jobpath on top of everything else ,

          6. italia'90

            Just to break the irony meter, we can’t travel to their country as they’re not on the green list ffs.
            Same medication costs a fraction there as it does here, but on their illness benefit system they wouldn’t get this drug unless they paid 500€ per month.
            Free of charge from St. James’ hospital. The doctor there said they were their patient and they weren’t letting them go. Must be a few bob in it for somebody?
            Same chancer tried to use my address for a bank account, deasp and hospital correspondence.

          7. Broadbag

            Janet – where have I suggested it’s a choice?

            Also, where are these magical countries that didn’t shut down and everything was wonderful, I agree the health service here is in a heap but other countries with far better funded and maintained health services have shut down in ways akin to Ireland?

        1. Cian

          Is this relates to only being allowed go on holiday to a country as approved by DFA. But since DFA haven’t approved any destinations therefore there are no holidays.

      1. Anne

        Pointing out the obvious here aren’t we. (well what you think is the obvious)..

        And you can leave the country, your Pandemic payment will just be discontinued, until you go harass them again to put you back on it upon your return.

  19. Matt Pilates

    Worst thread of comments ever. So bad, that I miss Pat Mustard’s ejaculations on “Warning Signs” over the weekend.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link