Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Early Retirement option

  • 09-04-2009 10:14am
    #1
    NEDDURC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 452 ✭✭


    What do people think of the over 50 early retirement option? Is it a good deal for public servants to take this option if they are a few years away from retirement? Details seem quite vague on it so far with no estimates of savings. What percentage of employees would be over 50 and eligble for this?


Comments

  • #2
    Alcatel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Alcatel


    NEDDURC wrote: »
    What do people think of the over 50 early retirement option? Is it a good deal for public servants to take this option if they are a few years away from retirement? Details seem quite vague on it so far with no estimates of savings. What percentage of employees would be over 50 and eligble for this?
    Re: actual figures, it's hard to say, as it's voluntary. But it's looking quite popular - so too is the 3 year career break, with a max of something like 13k a year in pay, and the new short working year, which was basically "term time" for parents who wouldn't work during the school holidays. Now it's a "short year" that anyone, kids or not can take.

    On the one hand it's good - with the recruitment freeze, we lower the pay bill.

    On the other friggen hand, it's a softy option to laying people off - if they think we can do without these folks for half the year, or three years, or their last 10-15 years of service, why don't we show them the bloody door? Because the unions would cause war, of course. They're happy that you can choose to take time off, if you like, and come back to your job.

    On the "real politik" side, it's good - reduces the bill without causing union warfare.

    On the other hand, it's gravy training - We won't fire you, but please take 3 years out/a half year, with reassurance that your job will be there forever more when you come back. SR Technics people didn't get that option...


  • #3
    mrshappy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84 ✭✭mrshappy


    I think it is a great idea - I know in UCC that most of the higher earners (can't believe the wages some of them are on!!) are over 50 and 'some' just seem to float around the place waiting to retirement so that would get rid of alot of expense if they were to go - of course it is impossibly to fire them so hopefully the lazy ones will take up this offer, rather than the ones that actually do a bit of work


  • #4
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,164 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Nothing says you're essential to the running of the country more than trying to push retirement or a three year holiday on you :)


  • #5
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    NEDDURC wrote: »
    What do people think of the over 50 early retirement option? Is it a good deal for public servants to take this option if they are a few years away from retirement? Details seem quite vague on it so far with no estimates of savings. What percentage of employees would be over 50 and eligble for this?
    It's a bit vague on whether or not they're offering the full pension.

    It would be ageist to assume that all over 50's are useless and unnecessary & it's quite possible that some departments will block their genuinely valuable staff from leaving. The remaining staffers will see themselves getting little more for their effort than if they retired, being taxed and levied 60% on the difference between the early-retirer's pension and a full salary while at the same time denied promotion on merit and expected to do the jobs of those who've left as well as their own...with the threat of 'decentralisation' to FF-land (in time for the elections) waiting in the wings.

    The PMDS upward feedback is likely to be colourful.


  • #6
    Firetrap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,442 ✭✭✭Firetrap


    I think the veiled threat to tax the lump sum that they get when they retire could make some people closer to 60 retire earlier than they were planning to do. Seeing the way the economy is going, it could happen as early as the next budget.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Kristopherus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,907 ✭✭✭✭Kristopherus


    Firetrap wrote: »
    I think the veiled threat to tax the lump sum that they get when they retire could make some people closer to 60 retire earlier than they were planning to do. Seeing the way the economy is going, it could happen as early as the next budget.

    You could well be right there,Firetrap. But if that threat comes true, you can be sure that someone will test it in court. On the grounds that it would have been explained to them in their Letter of Appointment, which is essentially a Contract, that the Lump Sum would be tax free. Most Public Servants would, or at least,should have got those details at the time of appointment.


  • #8
    easyeason3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,104 ✭✭✭easyeason3


    NewDubliner wrote: »
    It's a bit vague on whether or not they're offering the full pension.

    It would be ageist to assume that all over 50's are useless and unnecessary & it's quite possible that some departments will block their genuinely valuable staff from leaving. The remaining staffers will see themselves getting little more for their effort than if they retired, being taxed and levied 60% on the difference between the early-retirer's pension and a full salary while at the same time denied promotion on merit and expected to do the jobs of those who've left as well as their own...with the threat of 'decentralisation' to FF-land (in time for the elections) waiting in the wings.

    The PMDS upward feedback is likely to be colourful.

    Well I'd imagine that they aren't being ageist to over 50's but in fairness most over 50's in the service have their family reared, or very near it, & have less expenses than a twenty, thirty or forty something year old.
    I know a good few people in their 50's that have never had to get a mortgage or if they did it was ridiculously small & cleared by now.
    Most people in their 20's. 30's or 40's still have a mortgage & possibly children to support.
    Not saying that anyone in their 50's hasn't got financial responsibilities but they are probably in a better position to take early redundancy than most.
    As well as that they have spent a good chunk of their life working so it is a nice option to be offered if it suits, most 50somethings probably have a dream to travel & do different things as much as a 20something year old so it might just be the right move for some of them.


  • #9
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    This article in the Irish Times gives a good explanation of the proposal.

    The key fact is that it's not a full pension for everyone over 50, it's reduced by 1/80 for each year short of 40 years service. So, a 50-year old would probably leave on 3/8ths pay. But, they would avoid paying the pension levy on their entire salary.

    There's also one statement in the article that's probably wrong. It mentions the State Pension, but the people targetted by the scheme mostly don't qualify for it.


Advertisement