td cessation payements

ednwireland

why do td's who resign or decide not to stand again get cessation payements ?

if i walk out of my job i get nothing, ok i can understand if you stand and get voted out you may get something,

just wondering i dont get it, jim mcdaid got one as well, he basically walked out of his job

just another anomaly i the system

did george lee get one ?

sollar

The bertie era was something else. They must have sneaked these things in quietly.

Lapin

I'd love someone to come on here and give us one (just one) good reason for these payments.

snubbleste

We're entitled.

bmaxi

Lapin wrote: »

I'd love someone to come on here and give us one (just one) good reason for these payments.

The employee is also the paymaster.

nordydan

Lapin wrote: »

I'd love someone to come on here and give us one (just one) good reason for these payments.

Because they get away from it

Welease

Lapin wrote: »

I'd love someone to come on here and give us one (just one) good reason for these payments.

<cough> here goes...

There are very few roles in public service to which the employee (TD) is required to be re-elected every few years. In order to attract a good standard of politician the pay and benefits need to be attractive, but also you need to have a somewhat soft landing for those who are voted out of power.

I do think that it's somewhat unfair to expect them to forgoe a "redundancy" package when noone else in the PS will do so. From a TD's point of view, many will have mortgages/bills etc. just like the rest of us, they need some form of short term security when running the gauntlet of public opinion as part of their jobs.

For those who decide to leave, it's probably just cheaper to pay it and keep it simple, rather than develop a list of scenarios which could avail of the payment.

OhNoYouDidn't

Lapin wrote: »

I'd love someone to come on here and give us one (just one) good reason for these payments.

Theory being that TD's should have no outside business interests and it cushions the blow of immediate umemployment.

Reality is that TD's salaries have increased to a point where its a redundant excercise.

yoshytoshy

At least government get something right ,even if it leaves the rest of the country high and dry.

ednwireland

Welease wrote: »

<cough> here goes...

There are very few roles in public service to which the employee (TD) is required to be re-elected every few years. In order to attract a good standard of politician the pay and benefits need to be attractive, but also you need to have a somewhat soft landing for those who are voted out of power.

I do think that it's somewhat unfair to expect them to forgoe a "redundancy" package when noone else in the PS will do so. From a TD's point of view, many will have mortgages/bills etc. just like the rest of us, they need some form of short term security when running the gauntlet of public opinion as part of their jobs.

For those who decide to leave, it's probably just cheaper to pay it and keep it simple, rather than develop a list of scenarios which could avail of the payment.

its an upto 5 year contract, thats what you sign up for

its actually worse that people like lee and mc daid got them

Welease

ednwireland wrote: »

its an upto 5 year contract, thats what you sign up for

And the payment is there to ensure some level of certainty in the short term if you don't get relected. I personally don't have an issue with it.

If we don't want to continue having poor career politicians, then I don't think we should be removing payments meant to entice smart people into office, or ensuring they face immediate financial difficulty (or nod/wink payments in advance) if they dont get relected.

In the true spirit of things, as mentioned by a previous poster, I would prefer if TD's didnt have links to private business etc. and therefore this payment would be more true in that sense..