Editorial: You may be better off on the dole

Often people are paid more while on the dole.

Editorial, definition; a newspaper article written by or on behalf of an editor that gives an opinion on a topical issue. Your piece on local workers in my view, provides no opinion at all but rather an emotive prejudiced view stereotyping unemployed people who are on a job seeker benefit.

Jobseeker beneficiaries include sole parents, mentally-ill people, people who have disabilities and or illnesses or drug and alcohol addictions that temporarily make them unemployable. So although they have been assessed as able to work may not be able to pick fruit. Therefore the pool of people from which to select the "Some Northlanders, it seems, are too lazy to work" is really much less than 7900.

Are they too lazy I wonder? Probably some are unreliable and this could be because they are too lazy, however, it may also be sensible for them not to go work fruit picking away from home. I'll tell you why.

Taking your word for it that they can earn "about" $400 per week; this doesn't allow for down time caused by rain or slow ripening or some other issue. A beneficiary aged 20-24 receives a basic jobseeker benefit of $175.10, and may, (let's assume they do) receive the "special benefit standard costs" of $89.75, and an accommodation allowance of $100. This means an after tax and before expenses income of $364.89. A person aged 25 and over using the same Work and Income provided information receives a benefit of $435.26. Single DPB living alone; $451.51. Jobseeker Sole parent $465.00.

Can you see a picture emerging here? If I am 23-years-old and take a short-term job that pays $400 per week I will have to stop my benefit because the job pays more than the benefit. Its 90km to Kerikeri and it costs me 18 litres of petrol per day, or $34 for gas. So my $400 per week job assuming a six-day week becomes $196 after weekly petrol. Now I'm getting paid $196 net but still have the same living expenses to meet as I did when I was getting paid $364. It's a no-brainer that I wouldn't want to work for a net loss per week of $168. Then after the job finishes I'll probably have a 13-week stand down before receiving a benefit again.

I could stay in Kerikeri but I would have to rent something there and I would have to keep my place in Whangarei because the job is short-term. Three-hundred more unemployed in Kerikeri might not be great for the town as job prospects that are permanent are limited.

So I think you're wrong to infer that the unemployed are lazy, it might be fashionable to blame the unemployed for their circumstances, but they often need a hand-up rather than a hand-out. Increasing the wages offered or having growers provide a van and charging for the ride to cover the cost would help. This would also help the local economy; increased wages and employment for people increases spending and increases business, its simple win/win. So getting back to my point it would be more beneficial to provide an opinion piece on how to engage local businesses, innovative councils and leaders to support the local employment and economy rather than further alienate the locals.

-Don Robertson is an employment broker for the Salvation Army.