The HSE's despicable practice of offering nurses two week and 30 day contracts.

Jane5

It has come to my attention that nurses in Ireland are being offered two week contracts, and thirty day contracts, and having these renewed repeatedly and not even given the dignity of so much as a six month contract, let alone permanency.

Recently, many private hospitals have also adopted this practice, and tried to impose pay cuts on these nurses, stating that they will not renew their contracts if they refuse, and not to bother contacting their unions.

Many nurses are hence unable to take up even those few posts that are on offer, as they are not in position to get leases to rent somewhere with only a two week contract. Many newly graduated nurses are being refused credit cards on the basis that they are only employed for two weeks to thirty days at a time.

So they are all leaving. See link below. Note how the UK hospital employers describe the haemorrhage of Irish trained nurses to their shores as "an absolute godsend".

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/1215/1224260710637.html

Is this incredible practice actually legal, can anyone tell me? Surely there is some kind of EU worker's protection law that should prevent exploitation of workers in such as a manner? By refusing to provide workers with a reasonable security of employment, such that they can rent an apartment in the area they will be working in, surely they must be in breach of something?

In any case, these amazingly right wing insane hiring policies are driving away all our nurses. This is economically unsound, in that we pay to train them.

pbull69

Samw with medical scientists (laboratories)... 40 day contracts....bloody ridiculous

wheresthebeef

I'm a recently qualified nurse, who is general trained, now working in residential care for persons with intellectual disabilities, because it's the only place i could reasonably expect to get hours for a full working week. my contract is a Zero hour contract which states "hours of work 0, you may be required to work above and beyond these hours in consultation with your line manager" which basically means, from week to week they are obligated to nothing, but can give me whatever hours they want, whenever they want, leaving me at their beckon call. It's ****e, but it's all thats available.
I'm tempted by the NHS to be honest, especially with these cuts.
And even on a zero hour contract, i've to pay the pension levy, income levy and take the pay cuts, as a punishement for having a job for life and job security, even though I have neither. It's bordering on criminal.

Tragedy

I work on the HSE and have been on monthly contracts for 3(!) years without ever being offered any sort of long contract or permanancy.

Why is it so despicable only when applied to nurses?

sam34

Tragedy wrote: »

I work on the HSE and have been on monthly contracts for 3(!) years without ever being offered any sort of long contract or permanancy.

Why is it so despicable only when applied to nurses?

in fairness, nobody said that.

the op saw an article that related to nurses, perhaps she was unaware it also applied to other workers.

Tragedy

sam34 wrote: »

in fairness, nobody said that.

the op saw an article that related to nurses, perhaps she was unaware it also applied to other workers.

In fairness, it's fairly common to have recurring short term contracts in the public sector. Why is it so terrible that nurses are on them?

Not trying to troll, or nit pick, but come on?

The OP's link mentions nothing of 2 week contracts, inability to get credit card or leases. It mentions recruitment embargo.

sam34

Tragedy wrote: »

In fairness, it's fairly common to have recurring short term contracts in the public sector. Why is it so terrible that nurses are on them?

Not trying to troll, or nit pick, but come on?

The OP's link mentions nothing of 2 week contracts, inability to get credit card or leases. It mentions recruitment embargo.

is it common across the public sector?

i dont know what staff it applies to, depsite having spent all my working life employed by the hse.

i know what contract i'm on, and i know a bit about those pertainig to permanent nurses, as i used to go out with one, but ive no idea what contracts are imposed on other workers.

it follows fairly logically that if you're on two week contracts you'll have trouble getting rental leases, credit cards etc.

presumably the op is a nurse, or else is otherwise affected by the knock on effect of this kind of employment, and thats why she raised the issue here.

if you want to tell us how it's affecting you, go right ahead.

i think you're looking for a bone to pick when there isnt one.

femur61

Teachers should have this type of contract as well. There are so many bad teachers in the system, this I think is not fair on good teachers as they are been tared with the same brush.

sam34

femur61 wrote: »

Teachers should have this type of contract as well. There are so many bad teachers in the system, this I think is not fair on good teachers as they are been tared with the same brush.

this discussion has nothing to do with teachers.

this is teh health sciences forum.

Tragedy

sam34 wrote: »

is it common across the public sector?

About 1/6th of the staff at my hospital was agency temps before the recruitment embargo - they generally had no contract at all.
I actually meant to say it's common across the private sector, my apologies(and this applies to private sector hospitals, knowing people both in Hermitage and Beacon).

it follows fairly logically that if you're on two week contracts you'll have trouble getting rental leases, credit cards etc.

This is a problem people face in almost all careers, why is it terribly despicable and noteworthy only when nurses are on it?

presumably the op is a nurse, or else is otherwise affected by the knock on effect of this kind of employment, and thats why she raised the issue here.

How is it an issue? If you want job stability in order to be able to get credit card/etc, apply elsewhere. FWIW, not heard of people not being given leases purely because they're on two week contracts - if you can show pay slips going back months, can pay the deposit, they aren't going to care.(this applies to financial problems too, recurring temp contracts aren't new and banks have mechanisms to process applications from people who are on them).

My brother who's on an acting allowance got both a credit card and a mortgage this year based on the acting allowance, and he had to disclose exactly when they acting allowance contract was running out(which was 2months after applying for both), but stated he was told it would be renewed which satisfied them.

if you want to tell us how it's affecting you, go right ahead.

I've suffered a 75% pay cut since June, and will suffer another 24% on what I currently earn due to the budget. I haven't had a contract since October and am operating on good will that I'll be paid for each week I work.

i think you're looking for a bone to pick when there isnt one.

There is a bone to pick, there's nothing wrong, illegal or immoral about the use of temporary recurring contracts in either the private or public sector. It's even in employment legislation, yet someones posting about how despicable and terrible it is and posting with a condescending manner about it.

It's akin to someone suddenly appearing and saying
"It's come to my attention that out of work nurses are falling into arrears with their mortgages. I think this is terrible and despicable and something must be done to help the out of work nurses".

Ya right

sam34

Tragedy wrote: »

This is a problem people face in almost all careers, why is it terribly despicable and noteworthy only when nurses are on it?

who is saying it is despicable only when applied to nurses?? the op certainly didnt say that, in fact towards the end of her post she repeatedly referred to "workers".

i'm presuming the op is a nurse, and that's why she is aware of the issue. i wouldnt generally expect anyone to be au fait with the type of contracts offered to other workers, which is presumably why the op didnt reference any other particular group of workers.

Tragedy wrote: »

How is it an issue? If you want job stability in order to be able to get credit card/etc, apply elsewhere. FWIW, not heard of people not being given leases purely because they're on two week contracts - if you can show pay slips going back months, can pay the deposit, they aren't going to care.(this applies to financial problems too, recurring temp contracts aren't new and banks have mechanisms to process applications from people who are on them).

My brother who's on an acting allowance got both a credit card and a mortgage this year based on the acting allowance, and he had to disclose exactly when they acting allowance contract was running out(which was 2months after applying for both), but stated he was told it would be renewed which satisfied them.

when i took out the current lease on my rented apartment, which is for one year, I was asked to produce a contract of employment for that year, and was told I wouldnt be accepted as a tenant without that.


i've known people get refused credit on the basis of lack of job stability and guaranteed income

Tragedy wrote: »

I haven't had a contract since October and am operating on good will that I'll be paid for each week I work..

that, to me, is despicable behaviour on the part of your employer.

Tragedy wrote: »

There is a bone to pick, there's nothing wrong, illegal or immoral about the use of temporary recurring contracts in either the private or public sector. It's even in employment legislation, yet someones posting about how despicable and terrible it is and posting with a condescending manner about it.

there is no bone. you're trying to insinuate that the op thinks it's perfectly ok to treat every other employee like this, but not nurses.

thats not what the op is saying at all. she is aware of this happening nurses, and posted about the issue in the health sciences forum.


if you want to discuss employment practices in general, there are other fora for that.

what was condescending about the opening post?

Jane5

I'm not a nurse. I do work in the health service, however, if someone offered me a two week contract I would laugh in their faces before taking my skills elsewhere.

It is completely unreasonable to offer ANY workers, nurses or otherwise a job with this piss-poor level of security. I note they are all paying the pension levy, subject to the paycuts, etc, for having a supposedly "secure job for life with gold-plated pension" etc. I have never seen this happen before, never heard of these sorts of contracts and wondered if it was a sign of the new, right wing fascist Ireland.

Note I am not talking about agency staff. I am talking about ordinary nurses, not receiving agency wages either.

You see, when you treat your workers well, and respect them, they tend to want to do their job well, to stay with you, and also out of loyalty. No-one feels loyal to the Irish system anymore, as it is actively hostile to workers, and hence the good workers leave.

Well, regardless, the UK, Oz, NZ, the US and Canada seem to be doing pretty well out of it all.

Last one to leave, please turn out the lights?

Tragedy

sam34 wrote: »

who is saying it is despicable only when applied to nurses?? the op certainly didnt say that, in fact towards the end of her post she repeatedly referred to "workers".

The OP did say that. I'm not going to argue that the OP didn't say it with you. It seems blatantly obvious to me what the OP meant, and I'll leave it to others to make their mind up.

i'm presuming the op is a nurse, and that's why she is aware of the issue.

The OP is an NCHD I think, or else angling to end up one.

i wouldnt generally expect anyone to be au fait with the type of contracts offered to other workers,

Why not? It's ignorance not to know the kind of contracts under which you can and might be employed under in the future as all knowledge and info is widely available and reported on.

which is presumably why the op didnt reference any other particular group of workers.

Or else, like many other threads, nurses are thought to be a special case. I'm operating under that premise as I see nothing in her(forgive me if it's a his) post to contradict that assumption.

when i took out the current lease on my rented apartment, which is for one year, I was asked to produce a contract of employment for that year, and was told I wouldnt be accepted as a tenant without that.

When did you take out your lease? Very few new renters have lock tight year long contracts, and plenty of students make do.

A history of repeat short term contracts is no different than your typical open contract, both can be terminated in the same period.

i've known people get refused credit on the basis of lack of job stability and guaranteed income

I've known people get refused credit who have job stability and guaranteed income.

If you can provide evidence of savings, savings history, job history(i.e. even if you've been working 30day contracts for two years, you still have two years history of the same wages going into your account). You and Jane seem to think temp contracting is a new fad and no-one has ever come across it before, it isn't and financial institutions are used to dealing with it.

that, to me, is despicable behaviour on the part of your employer.

Having no contract probably gives me more stability than having one, this way they have to give me 30days notice, whereas before they could give me notice the day before the contract runs out

there is no bone. you're trying to insinuate that the op thinks it's perfectly ok to treat every other employee like this, but not nurses.

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm stating, quite clearly, that the OP only seems outraged because he/she discovered this was happening to nurses and it was a new occurence.

thats not what the op is saying at all. she is aware of this happening nurses, and posted about the issue in the health sciences forum.

Except it isn't an issue. It's perfectly legal, valid and moral with a long history in business. How is it an issue?

if you want to discuss employment practices in general, there are other fora for that.

What employment practices in general have I discussed? I simply stated that this is long standing practice in employment generally and is no news really.

what was condescending about the opening post?

That we should all be disgusted because this is happening to nurses?
That this action is despicable?
That nurses are leaving the country wholesale because of this practice?(They aren't, even what the OP linked stated they were leaving because they couldn't get work full stop).

Jane5 wrote: »

however, if someone offered me a two week contract I would laugh in their faces before taking my skills elsewhere.

Very professional of you.

It is completely unreasonable to offer ANY workers, nurses or otherwise a job with this piss-poor level of security.

Why is it unreasonable? How is it less secure than someone with an open contract?

I note they are all paying the pension levy,

Pension levy can be reclaimed in full if you leave the HSE before your pension is 2 years old.

subject to the paycuts, etc, for having a supposedly "secure job for life with gold-plated pension" etc.

I thought that issue had been done to death and people had come to a consensus that while in some cases, the pay cuts were harsh, in the most they were necessary?

I have never seen this happen before, never heard of these sorts of contracts

That's probably because you've never worked outside the public sector.
Am I right?
The above would be a good example of why the government spin machine had such an easy job pitting private sector against public sector.

If you had ever even looked for a job online, you would have seen hundres, if not thousands, of these types of jobs being advertised.

and wondered if it was a sign of the new, right wing fascist Ireland.

Are you for real?

Note I am not talking about agency staff. I am talking about ordinary nurses, not receiving agency wages either.

Because even on a 30day contract, they receive prorated holiday pay and sick pay, and are eligible for all benefits a fixed contract nurse would be eligible for.

You see, when you treat your workers well, and respect them, they tend to want to do their job well, to stay with you, and also out of loyalty.

Which has what to do with short term contracts?

No-one feels loyal to the Irish system anymore, as it is actively hostile to workers, and hence the good workers leave.

The irish system is actively biased towards the employee and the trade union, if you think otherwise, I suggest you educate yourself.

sam34

Tragedy wrote: »

The OP did say that. I'm not going to argue that the OP didn't say it with you. It seems blatantly obvious to me what the OP meant, and I'll leave it to others to make their mind up..

nowhere in the opening or subsequent posts did the op state this was only applied to nurses or that it was only an issue when applied to nurses.

Tragedy wrote: »

Why not? It's ignorance not to know the kind of contracts under which you can and might be employed under in the future as all knowledge and info is widely available and reported on.

i see no reason to be au fait with all types of employment law and contractual matters. i would think it sufficient to be aware of your own contract and terms.

Tragedy wrote: »

When did you take out your lease? Very few new renters have lock tight year long contracts, and plenty of students make do

i took out my lease six months ago

Tragedy wrote: »

I've known people get refused credit who have job stability and guaranteed income.

*shrug* so do i.

Tragedy wrote: »

You and Jane seem to think temp contracting is a new fad and no-one has ever come across it before, it isn't and financial institutions are used to dealing with it.

i never indicated that

Tragedy wrote: »

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm stating, quite clearly, that the OP only seems outraged because he/she discovered this was happening to nurses and it was a new occurence..

again, the op never said it was an accetable practice for other workers, just not for nurses, she mentioned teh term "workers" twice in her last paragraph.

she is not saying that it i despicable ONLY when applied to nurses

Tragedy wrote: »

What employment practices in general have I discussed? I simply stated that this is long standing practice in employment generally and is no news really..

you've discussed public and private sector employment, and employment law.

RobFowl

Tragedy wrote: »

A history of repeat short term contracts is no different than your typical open contract

This comment is just plain wrong, on so many levels it's hard to know where to start!!

Tragedy wrote: »

The irish system is actively biased towards the employee and the trade union, if you think otherwise, I suggest you educate yourself.

Do you have a poster of Michael O Leary on the bedroom wall ??


As a GP and employer and an ex NCHD I find the idea of using recurring 2 week and 30 day contracts disgusting especially where the intention is to keep the person in post for the medium to long term.
Nurses and Doctors (I know both groups well) are all starting to walk. A GP friend of mine with 20 years experience left for Austrailia last week, nurses are leaving in their hundreds, physios as well.
The status quo is apalling and change from the top down is needed.

Tragedy

sam34 wrote: »

nowhere in the opening or subsequent posts did the op state this was only applied to nurses or that it was only an issue when applied to nurses.

And? The OP only got indignant when they found out it was happening to nurses

i see no reason to be au fait with all types of employment law and contractual matters. i would think it sufficient to be aware of your own contract and terms.

That would be almost the textbook definition of ignorance(look it up, i don;t mean it as an insult).

again, the op never said it was an accetable practice for other workers, just not for nurses,

Why not for nurses?

she mentioned teh term "workers" twice in her last paragraph.

What has that got to do with anything? She said workers, she could have meant nurses by workers, she didn't say workers in general, general workers, or anything of the sort. She said workers twice, it has no relevance and does nothing to support your argument.

she is not saying that it i despicable ONLY when applied to nurses

I've read the thread title and the first post, she only seemed upset about nurses being submitted to this "undignified" practice.

you've discussed public and private sector employment, and employment law.

I didn't discuss private sector employment, I said this practice is common among private sector employment. Employment law applies to private and public sector exactly the same, so I don't see your point their either.

And if the OP did in fact mean "general workers" in her opening post, surely you should have closed the thread for discussing private sector employment? Oops.

Robfowl wrote:

This comment is just plain wrong, on so many levels it's hard to know where to start!!

I didn't say the contracts were the same, I said to a financial institution or indeed a landlord, the effect and risk is the same. Employed under open/temp contracts from X-Y, no guaranteed future employment for either.

Do you have a poster of Michael O Leary on the bedroom wall ??

No, I know people who practice industrial relations and employment law on a daily basis(and they aren't working in stereotypical corporate big business).

I find the idea of using recurring 2 week and 30 day contracts disgusting

Why exactly? Many employers have a gap in their staffing but don't know exactly how long it will last, recurring contracts give them the flexibility while also affording the employee exactly the same rights as they would have on a 6 month or open contract.

especially where the intention is to keep the person in post for the medium to long term.

This is the important part, and the only part I agree with. However, itt already has legislation for the max amount of time someone can be contracted before being offered a permanent post.

A GP friend of mine with 20 years experience left for Austrailia last week,

How does a GP leaving have anything to do with pay and conditions in the HSE?

nurses are leaving in their hundreds

I'm not seeing many(or in my hospital: any) reports of nurses quitting their jobs and emigrating.

physios as well.

See above.

The status quo is apalling and change from the top down is needed

HSE contracts need to be torn up first, can't change anything while almost all staff are practically tenured. Middle management across the HSE is almost universally inept, support staff filled with people who do as little as possible because the culture has filtered down from the top that that's perfectly au fait and nothing bad will happen.

ballsymchugh

meh, they're only looking for something for all those admin staff to do.

DrIndy

I'm going to be watching this thread closely folks.

The issue is that we have a very messed up health service where we need good staff but are instead actively by pay and by conditions pushing them out. When you work in the public service (note - NOT civil service) you do sacrifice any wealth for job security. Now the final component is gone.

There is a haemhorage of staff to other jurisdictions - why is this happening?

Tragedy - you have walked into this forum - please be aware that what is happening is once more a very clear demonstration of HSE V Employees. No-one employed frontline in the HSE has any respect or support that they will actually aim for the best outcome of the end product - the patients. The reason why the Unions are so active and public is that every HSE employment proposal is an attack on its staff. The health service is in a unique situation where the senior management is paid less than the senior nursing and medical staff as is the nature of employing highly skilled people. This generates added antipathy and in addition - because in the end, although senior management control the purse strings, it is the senior nurses and doctors who control how it is spent as they have the expertise to know how and where to spend it.

Expand this and then you see that there is a huge antipathy between HSE and the frontline workers, typified by the illegal docking of overtime done blatantly by the hospitals to the doctors throughout the years and also the short term contract structure to allied health professionals (before the recession).

We have no trust in the HSE and unlike any other employer in the state, they have always taken an extremely hard stance and aggressive nature of middle management V's service delivery personel for decades. Never has there been co-operation, this is why the IMO and INO are so hardline about it - too many times have the employees been screwed around. Give an inch and lose a mile is the usual stance at negotiations - never even an attempt for negotiation for the best outcome - the patient.

There needs to be a sea change. I would happily work for less if my conditions were better - and this is universal - i never did medicine to be rich, if I did, I would have applied my skills to business and law rather than my patients. The pervasive spin of the HSE is the opposite in thie confrontational fight. I would like to be able to have enough free time to SPEND my money because right now I don't and merely save by default. Who else would work 60-80 hours a week for half of an accountant or solicitor who is equivalent qualified earns in 40?

But I digress - this is about nurses - and once again they are being screwed. Why does the government spend millions of euro educating our nurses to the highest of first world standards to offer them a pittance of a zero hour contract? The hospitals in australia and england are rubbing their hands with glee - never, ever have they had such highly skilled people dropped on their doorstep because the HSE would not employ them. We may choose to leave, but should never be forced out. The HSE is doing the latter.

Its a sad state of affairs - irrelevant of the current economic climate. Some things are fixed - children need to be educate, people get sick irrelevant of the state of the economy. We don't need to be paid well - and we never asked for that - but we should be given a cent of respect by being given a job.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Barfly generalisations probably aren't welcome but the long-term effect this will have on people working in hospitals and such like specifically nurses is scary. Their quality of life will no doubt be affected harshly by being in a sense exploited like this and I wouldn't be surprised at all if it affects the morale of workers in general.

K-9

Can't see how they can offer longer contracts given the current Govt. finance figures.
The money simply isn't there for each hospital to offer 6 month contracts. Finances are tight enough.

sam34

Tragedy wrote: »

And? The OP only got indignant when they found out it was happening to nurses.

that doesnt mean the op thinks it's acceptable to treat all other workers like this, which is what you've been trying to imply.

Tragedy wrote: »

That would be almost the textbook definition of ignorance(look it up, i don;t mean it as an insult)

really? some textbook you must have.

btw, calling someone ignorant then saying "i dont mean it as an insult" does not negate the inherent insult

Tragedy wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything? She said workers, she could have meant nurses by workers, she didn't say workers in general, general workers, or anything of the sort. She said workers twice, it has no relevance and does nothing to support your argument.

it does actuallty. it indicates she does not think this is acceptable for workers, not just nurses, but workers.

Tragedy wrote: »

I didn't discuss private sector employment

So you claim, but...

Tragedy wrote: »

I said this practice is common among private sector employment. Employment law applies to private and public sector exactly the same, so I don't see your point their either.

you did mention both public and private sector employment, as you yourself referenced above, in a previous post

Tragedy wrote: »

And if the OP did in fact mean "general workers" in her opening post, surely you should have closed the thread for discussing private sector employment? Oops.

nope, because the thread has relevance to healthcare workers, and this is afterall the health sciences forum.

Prime Mover

Tragedy wrote: »

There is a bone to pick, there's nothing wrong, illegal or immoral about the use of temporary recurring contracts in either the private or public sector. It's even in employment legislation, yet someones posting about how despicable and terrible it is and posting with a condescending manner about it.

As an absolute statement of fact, yes, there is nothing wrong or illegal about the use of temporary contracts. However in the context of running a health service they are not the correct strategy. You are talking about people that have specifically trained for a defined role in the workforce, not a seasonal merchandiser stacking beer crates one month or easter eggs the next month.

The use of those contracts stems from two main problems. A complete failure of management and counter-productive over-unionisation of the sector.

None of the top companies in the world work like this. They pay you a reasonable salary, train you, give you a relative certainty of employment and career progression but they expect you to be flexible and reserve the right to kick you out or at least not ever promote you if you are not up to scratch.

When you treat your employees like s**t, it drives them to the unions for security. Goodwill evaporates, you hear "that's not my job", people buy into that "us v them" attitude and one of the biggest problems is that it becomes impossible to get rid of those people. You get the irony of workers striking to keep crap workers. New arrivals are told you have to be in the union and so the cycle continues.

You sound like you subscribe to Theory X management, that workers dislike work and just do it for the money under duress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y

I find that hard to believe, especially for a job like nursing. Workers attitudes are a product of the system they work in. People in general want to work in a pleasant environment and to have job satisfaction and career progression. If the system is designed well and is a proper meritocracy then the bad ones don't get past the first one or two rungs of the ladder.

Moving people to 0 hour contracts is not the way to achieve a motivated workforce.

Pete4779

Red Sleeping Beauty wrote: »

Barfly generalisations probably aren't welcome but the long-term effect this will have on people working in hospitals and such like specifically nurses is scary. Their quality of life will no doubt be affected harshly by being in a sense exploited like this and I wouldn't be surprised at all if it affects the morale of workers in general.

Morale is a little intangible for many people to grasp in private sector businesses. It will only hit home when queues for A/E becomes days, when OPD for elective surgery extend years as staff simply leave.

These aren't the permanent staff of the public sector civil service. They are temporary employees on short term contracts with zero job security, as are provate contractors, but not being paid like it. As we see with the nurses all moving to the UK, and hospitals in midlands Ireland being unable to fill NCHD positions, it will be a few years and a good few unneccessary deaths before it sinks in that you have to pay for a health service; if you don't, then when you are sick, you don't get care. Sad but true.

The_Conductor

DrIndy wrote: »

The issue is that we have a very messed up health service where we need good staff but are instead actively by pay and by conditions pushing them out. When you work in the public service (note - NOT civil service) you do sacrifice any wealth for job security. Now the final component is gone.

In all fairness its almost identical in the civil service (and prison service) for anyone employed in the past 15 years (since the change in 1995 legislation, where pension rights got massively diluted). There were very limited numbers of permanent positions on offer- and there has been a defacto embargo on recruitment since 2002. Most people since 2002 are on shortterm revolving contracts- normally with a 6 month gap between contracts, so as to get around the Fixed Term Working Act. Job security is something of the past, and given that there is no longer any distinction between admin staff and technical and scientific staff- the pay is also appalling (according to the ESRI- the civil service and the local authority staff once you go above the basic admin levels, are paid considerably less than comparable posts in the private sector (admin grades, particularly at the lower end, are paid considerably more), and the same report points the finger notably at the education sector as having far and away the highest pay disparity with the private sector. Even the HSE admin staff blocked moves to be reassigned to the civil service- on the grounds they were unwilling to accept the civil service payscales......

What nurses are experiencing is replicated pretty much as standard across the public sector. If I wasn't 35, owned an apartment in negative equity and have a kid coming soon, I'd certainly be out of here like a shot.

opinion guy

wheresthebeef wrote: »

I'm a recently qualified nurse, who is general trained, now working in residential care for persons with intellectual disabilities, because it's the only place i could reasonably expect to get hours for a full working week. my contract is a Zero hour contract which states "hours of work 0, you may be required to work above and beyond these hours in consultation with your line manager" which basically means, from week to week they are obligated to nothing, but can give me whatever hours they want, whenever they want, leaving me at their beckon call. It's ****e, but it's all thats available.
I'm tempted by the NHS to be honest, especially with these cuts.
And even on a zero hour contract, i've to pay the pension levy, income levy and take the pay cuts, as a punishement for having a job for life and job security, even though I have neither. It's bordering on criminal.

Wow. My only response to that would be - screw your job I'm going agency where I'll have similar conditions but at least I'll be well paid.