Labor Court away with the fairies.

Atilathehun

Seems like the dodo's down in the labor court are also dancing at midnight around the fairy tree.

That's another quango which should go in the bin. Fat cat salaried do gooders

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0422/1224295255952.html


Extra leave and €2,000 advised for relocating HSE staff

THE LABOUR Court has recommended financial compensation for a group of HSE staff being asked to move location.
The court recommended that the staff who are being asked to move to a new location, just beyond the maximum distance for redeployment under the Croke Park deal, should receive €2,000 each as well as two additional days’ leave per year for the next two years.
The Labour Court has also urged that the HSE should approach the Government about reopening a voluntary redundancy/early retirement scheme for those staff who are not willing to move to the new location.
The recommendation could set a precedent for the broader public service in cases where management are seeking to redeploy staff beyond the maximum distances set out in the Croke Park agreement.
The HSE staff concerned work in a hospital in north Cork. Management wants them to transfer from next week to a new facility in Cork city – seven kilometres beyond the limit set for redeployment under the Croke Park agreement.
The Labour Court recommendation says that since 2009 the HSE had been seeking to transfer 60 staff and 27 patients from Heatherside Hospital in Buttevant, north Cork, to Heather House on the campus of St Mary’s Orthopaedic Hospital in Gurranabraher, in Cork city – a distance of 52km.
The Croke Park agreement on pay and reform in the public service provides for the relocation of staff within a radius of 45km.
As the distance involved in the north Cork case was greater than the maximum set out for redeployment under the Croke Park deal, trade unions representing the staff concerned sought compensation for the additional travel time involved as well as for travel expenses.
They also sought alternative work options for staff not willing to undertake the proposed transfer and/or the provision of an early retirement/voluntary redundancy package.
The HSE had offered to provide a bus service to run between the two locations. Management also proposed the provision of one additional day’s leave for the staff concerned this year and next year on a cost-neutral basis.
HSE management said that while staff would be required to move to the Cork city centre initially, it would prioritise a return to north Cork when approved vacancies became available.
Trade unions said the transfer to the new location would add 1.5 hours to the travel time for the staff concerned.
They also argued that new rosters being proposed by management would involve 12-hour shifts and would mean that staff would be absent from home for 15 hours in total. The unions said that there would also be additional travel expenses involved for the workers concerned.
In its recommendation, which has been issued to parties in recent days, the Labour Court said that the provision of a bus would not resolve the travel issue for most staff.
It said that “there was a common claim among all the unions involved in the move that some form of compensation for the extra travel and inconvenience involved would resolve this aspect of the claim”.
The court said that “due to the exceptional nature of the move” each staff member who would have to travel more than the 45km maximum should receive a once-off lump sum of €2,000.
It recommended that in compensation for the additional time involved in the transfer the staff concerned should receive two extra days’ annual leave this year and next year on a cost-neutral basis.
The court also proposed that HSE management should approach “the relevant authorities” to seek approval for the application or reopening of an early retirement/ voluntary exit package for staff who are not willing to transfer to the new location.
A spokeswoman for the health executive last night declined to comment on the Labour Court recommendation

ixtlan

I think you are being a bit harsh.

I'm not in the PS service, and would seldom be defending them, but a 52km change of work location is not something to be done lightly. I'm often driving on the Buttevant-Cork road, and it's not a commute I would like.

A once off 2k payment and 4 extra days holidays in total, seems not entirely unreasonable.

Such re-locations are uncommon in the private sector, so there would not be any general comparisons that could be made. As to it being just 7km outside the agreement, well one must draw a line somewhere. 45km is also quite far.

ix.

Dannyboy83

I was under the impression St.Mary's is being closed, there was a thread about it recently.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056209902

Cookie_Monster

ixtlan wrote: »

A once off 2k payment and 4 extra days holidays in total, seems not entirely unreasonable.

a blanket covering for all though is hardly an ideal solution. I'm sure at least some of those workers will now have a much shorter commute so get a double, un needed, benefit from this.

Jaysoose

What exactly is the 2K for? its hard to understand the logic of rewarding staff for simply going to work..along with extra annual leave.

Give them a mileage allowance yes..more flexible conidtions for the duration..yes..but hand them 2000 each??

Just proves the disconnect between the public sector unions and the rest of the working population.

ixtlan

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

a blanket covering for all though is hardly an ideal solution. I'm sure at least some of those workers will now have a much shorter commute so get a double, un needed, benefit from this.

Well if we take the statement at face value...

The court said that “due to the exceptional nature of the move” each staff member who would have to travel more than the 45km maximum should receive a once-off lump sum of €2,000.

That would suggest it is not a blanket deal. I would expect and hope that those whose commute was now under 45km would not be included. However many of the workers are likely to be within 7km of Buttevant so will be covered. I'm sure there are going to be some hard cases, where someone will move from an 8km commute to a 45km commute and will get nothing.

As for the 2k, I'd prefer this to a mileage allowance which would be a worse precedent. Then everyone would want an allowance regardless of distance. Yes, this is a messy solution, but it is an upheaval for some people depending on your circumstances. I really don't find this ruling outrageous. A private company wanting to move it's employees to a different site 52km away would also generate a lot of ill-feeling without some compensation. Time are hard, yes, but 2k + 4 days is IMHO not unreasonable for the gained flexibility.

ix.

Jaysoose

ixtlan wrote: »

Well if we take the statement at face value...

The court said that “due to the exceptional nature of the move” each staff member who would have to travel more than the 45km maximum should receive a once-off lump sum of €2,000.

That would suggest it is not a blanket deal. I would expect and hope that those whose commute was now under 45km would not be included. However many of the workers are likely to be within 7km of Buttevant so will be covered. I'm sure there are going to be some hard cases, where someone will move from an 8km commute to a 45km commute and will get nothing.

As for the 2k, I'd prefer this to a mileage allowance which would be a worse precedent. Then everyone would want an allowance regardless of distance. Yes, this is a messy solution, but it is an upheaval for some people depending on your circumstances. I really don't find this ruling outrageous. A private company wanting to move it's employees to a different site 52km away would also generate a lot of ill-feeling without some compensation. Time are hard, yes, but 2k + 4 days is IMHO not unreasonable for the gained flexibility.

ix.

Whats exceptional about the nature of the move? its distance nothing else..we all have commutes to work whats the news here. This country is in the toilet and still we have the unions creaming off money for every little thing.

sollar

I don't think its a good deal at all. It should be €2000 every year to compensate for the extra travel costs and time.

Multiply average fuel costs of €40 by the year and that is equal to about 2000.

ixtlan

sollar wrote: »

I don't think its a good deal at all. It should be €2000 every year to compensate for the extra travel costs and time.

Multiply average fuel costs of €40 by the year and that is equal to about 2000.

Indeed. For the people involved it's not a great deal. However considering the state of the economy, it's acceptable to all parties. And I sort of see myself as a party, being a privately employed taxpayer. It could never be an ongoing payment as it that would create inequality between current employees and future ones.

Jaysoose wrote: »

Whats exceptional about the nature of the move? its distance nothing else..we all have commutes to work whats the news here. This country is in the toilet and still we have the unions creaming off money for every little thing.

Many people have long commutes, but they accept a job knowing that, or they may move closer to that workplace renting or even buying a house or apartment. For that job location to change after they start work is unusual, and can raise all sorts of difficulties.

I'm in the middle here. sollar thinks the deal poor for the employee, jaysoose thinks it poor for the taxpayer. I think it seems about right.

Ix.

Sponge Bob

The 45km rule is relative to ones home not work surely some of the staff live in Mallow or even Cork itself and will be better off. I agree a move over 45km should automatically open a voluntary redundancy window though because some people are shocking drivers.

I know of a nurse in Galway who went out on the last redundancy round because she cannot ( barring hypnosis ) drive through roundabouts and would have to if redeployed. So she went and good riddance.

end a eknny

i see some people will have to use there investment property as there normal residence

sollar

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The 45km rule is relative to ones home not work surely some of the staff live in Mallow or even Cork itself and will be better off.

On redeployment:

'If redeployment is warranted, your employer would have to seek volunteers in the first instance. If there were no volunteers, selection for redeployment would be based on length of service (ie, those with most seniority would be the last to be redeployed). You could not be relocated more than 45km from your current workplace or home (whichever is the shorter) and employers would also have to have regard to reasonable daily commute times. And you could appeal if you were unhappy with a redeployment decision and an independent adjudicator – who would have to be agreed by the union - would have to issue a decision within 21 days.'

Moomoo1

2k is about what it costs to move. The removal company fees and the agency fees for signing a new conract probably come to that.

that's fair, you've signed a contract to provide work at location A and you moved, so you should help out the employees in moving too.

n900guy

Jaysoose wrote: »

What exactly is the 2K for? its hard to understand the logic of rewarding staff for simply going to work..along with extra annual leave.

Give them a mileage allowance yes..more flexible conidtions for the duration..yes..but hand them 2000 each??

Just proves the disconnect between the public sector unions and the rest of the working population.

The much higher amount of petrol costs to get to work and back. An extra 100km/day adds up quickly. 2k is probably enough to cover it for a year maybe two. Doesn't count the additional health costs of sitting in a car for an extra 5-6hrs a week though.

Jaysoose

n900guy wrote: »

The much higher amount of petrol costs to get to work and back. An extra 100km/day adds up quickly. 2k is probably enough to cover it for a year maybe two. Doesn't count the additional health costs of sitting in a car for an extra 5-6hrs a week though.

This is assuming that its an extra 45km on top of the existing commute.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

This is assuming that its an extra 45km on top of the existing commute.

No lets not assume anything!

There is a distance limit set out in the agreement.
The distance in this case is greater than that limit.
Matter went to the labour court for resolution.
Matter resolved!

Do we really need this thread to complain about staff of the HSE, is there nowhere else in this forum I could do that?

Why needlessly argue about facts no one here can ascertain such as is the commute greater than 45km. :rolleyes:
Or even some other stupid suggestions I can predict will pop up here considering the tone of other threads, such as do the HSE people have a second property closer. bla bla bla :rolleyes:

If there is any criticism to be laid at some groups feet, the only ones i can think reasonable are the labour court or the government who negotiated the CPA and the present government for continuing with that programme.

thebman

relocation are not unheard of even in the private sector. It seems fairly reasonable TBH.

In fact, it seems like a crap offer from a broke government.

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

No lets not assume anything!

There is a distance limit set out in the agreement.
The distance in this case is greater than that limit.
Matter went to the labour court for resolution.
Matter resolved!

Do we really need this thread to complain about staff of the HSE, is there nowhere else in this forum I could do that?

Why needlessly argue about facts no one here can ascertain such as is the commute greater than 45km. :rolleyes:
Or even some other stupid suggestions I can predict will pop up here considering the tone of other threads, such as do the HSE people have a second property closer. bla bla bla :rolleyes:

If there is any criticism to be laid at some groups feet, the only ones i can think reasonable are the labour court or the government who negotiated the CPA and the present government for continuing with that programme.

Calm down a second my post was a legitimate question to another poster so i dont understand why you feel the need to get all defensive and start ranting. If you dont like the tone of the thread then dont post in it.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

Calm down a second my post was a legitimate question to another poster so i dont understand why you feel the need to get all defensive and start ranting. If you dont like the tone of the thread then dont post in it.

Calm down? I was very calm when i posted that, but thanks for your considerations for my state of mind!


The opening line of that post was directed at you the rest at the thread and any future contributions.

It was you who had began raising suspicions about the distance that would have to be travelled, which is pointless because we dont know the variables!
So making any assumptions about the travelling distance was pointless and would have benefitted the thread just as well as if we began quoting from the latest harry potter novel!

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Calm down? I was very calm when i posted that, but thanks for your considerations for my state of mind!


The opening line of that post was directed at you the rest at the thread and any future contributions.

It was you who had began raising suspicions about the distance that would have to be travelled, which is pointless because we dont know the variables!
So making any assumptions about the travelling distance was pointless and would have benefitted the thread just as well as if we began quoting from the latest harry potter novel!

lol im sure you think your making sense and to be honest i find your style of posting quite entertaining but this post is pure nonsense.

Who is raising suspicions about the distance travelled i simply implied that the distance commuted would be different for most of the people involved i never implied that something suspicious was going on so to be honest i think you need to read the posts a bit better and be a bit less paranoid.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

Whats exceptional about the nature of the move? its distance nothing else..we all have commutes to work whats the news here. This country is in the toilet and still we have the unions creaming off money for every little thing.

Hmmm

Jaysoose wrote: »

This is assuming that its an extra 45km on top of the existing commute.

Indeed

Jaysoose wrote: »

Who is raising suspicions about the distance travelled i simply implied that the distance commuted would be different for most of the people involved i never implied that something suspicious was going on so to be honest

Your denial is comical!

Ok!
The definiton for implied: suggested without being directly or explicitly stated.

From your first post in this thread to your second, there is most certainly an imlication that(oh how could i put this) the staff members in question were trying to "creaming off money for every little thing".

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

Your just being stupid on purpose now, but then its not surprising looking at your other posts in the forum. You can interpret it however you want doesnt stop you being wrong though.

I was merely indicating that the additional milage could be more for some than others...whats the big deal?

What about your other comment about creaming off money for every little thing.

What was the intention of that post?

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

Its exactly what it says, your point being?

I never accused the pubic servants of trying to mislead about the distances they commuted so your wrong in your take on that part of the post and anybody can see that.

I do however think its a typical union attitude thats its a payment that is needed to "ease the pain" of an extended commute even though the eployees are getting two additional annual leave days. Why dont they give a mileage allowance and increased flexibilty for the duration?

What you are doing is purposely picking out different points that are not related and grouping them together to imply im saying something im not. Your being disengenuous and to be honest quite pathetic.

As has been said in this thread a mileage allowance would end up being more costly.
It could have also lead to claims from others not affected at the present. Im not bothered looking through the statue books but is there some thing in relation to employment law about equal pay for doing the same work, and i think the awarding of allowances comes under this.
That doesnt really matter becasue the awarding of mileage allowances in this case would have left the judgement open to much criticism.


As for taking two different points, they are very much related. What with being on the same thread and about the same issue.

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

As has been said in this thread a mileage allowance would end up being more costly.
It could have also lead to claims from others not affected at the present. Im not bothered looking through the statue books but is there some thing in relation to employment law about equal pay for doing the same work, and i think the awarding of allowances comes under this.
That doesnt really matter becasue the awarding of mileage allowances in this case would have left the judgement open to much criticism.


As for taking two different points, they are very much related. What with being on the same thread and about the same issue.

Can you prove this would be more costly or are you making assumptions, maybe finding out the distance different employees would need to travel could be a good place to start.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

Can you prove this would be more costly or are you making assumptions, maybe finding out the distance different employees would need to travel could be a good place to start.

Why introduce unneeded complications to a realitively simply process, there was me thinking people want reform and streamlining of the PS from the CPA.

Instead what you want is to moan about any decision, can you explain how introducing in this case a one off payment of €2,000 could in any event end up costing more than a mileage allowance which would have to available to other staff and not just the ones moving in this instance!

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Why introduce unneeded complications to a realitively simply process, there was me thinking people want reform and streamlining of the PS from the CPA.

Instead what you want is to moan about any decision, can you explain how introducing in this case a one off payment of €2,000 could in any event end up costing more than a mileage allowance which would have to available to other staff and not just the ones moving in this instance!

Can you provide evidence that a mileage allowance would cost more or less than a one off payment, we would need to know how much extra the civil servants would need to travel though.

I would imagine going through the labour courts to get this decision was anything but a simple process and a lot of time and money was involved reaching this decision the same as any labour court decision in the private sector.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

Can you provide evidence that a mileage allowance would cost more or less than a one off payment, we would need to know how much extra the civil servants would need to travel though.

I would imagine going through the labour courts to get this decision was anything but a simple process and a lot of time and money was involved reaching this decision the same as any labour court decision in the private sector.

HSE official travel mileage rates
http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/HR/HR_Circulars/HSE_HR_Circular_008_2009_re_Motor_Travel_Rates.pdf

So very easily we can see how it would cost more.

Assuming that the person could only charge for the addiotnal 7km over the max distance and could only charge the HSe for the incoming journey and that they work a five day week and assuming they work 48 weeks of the year that would be a distance travelled of 1680km a year multiply that by the engine size value in the link provided and for the smallest engine size and we get 673.78 per year. This allowance is then obviiusly payable for more than one year and to all staff employed and we get multiple of this number.

Do the two journeys a day and we get 1347.67 per year per staff.

Now not all staff might have the smallest engine size so lets look at the next size up the mid range. and that number goes to 1606.75 per year per staff.
Its an allowance so unlikely to be removed after year one.
There is a bigger engine size but lets not bother with that one.
Lets move on.

Now lets go further lets assume they get a mileage allowance for the whole amount 52km and can only charge for the inward journey well then we get a yearly cost of 5005.76 for the smallest engine size in the link provided.

We can continue with these numbers if you like?

hatz7

I think that those staff should of been told that they were getting nothing and either turn up to the new location or walk away from the job.

The sense of entitlement is not only confined to fat cat executives I see.

RobbieTheRobber

hatz7 wrote: »

I think that those staff should of been told that they were getting nothing and either turn up to the new location or walk away from the job.

The sense of entitlement is not only confined to fat cat executives I see.

yeah your right we should just sack all our nurses, that'll teach em!

While we are being fair I cant say I know of one nurse who has ever done a good job so what do we need them for anyway!

hatz7

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

yeah your right we should just sack all our nurses, that'll teach em!

While we are being fair I cant say I know of one nurse who has ever done a good job so what do we need them for anyway!

oh spare me the nurses/teachers/guards line.

My point is still valid, the sense of 'entitlement' is not only confined to fat cat executives.

Nothing to say about that do you??

RobbieTheRobber

hatz7 wrote: »

oh spare me the nurses/teachers/guards line.

My point is still valid, the sense of 'entitlement' is not only confined to fat cat executives.

Nothing to say about that do you??

nothing to do with entitlement, agreement was made.
Distance in this case was outside the agreed limit, matter went to the labour court to resolve the issue.

Labour court ruled on the matter.

Matter resolved.
Seems like fairly standard industrial relations.

As for your spare me comment you were the one calling for sackings i just expanded on your point. So sack em all to hell with health care i say!

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

HSE official travel mileage rates
http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/HR/HR_Circulars/HSE_HR_Circular_008_2009_re_Motor_Travel_Rates.pdf

So very easily we can see how it would cost more.

Assuming that the person could only charge for the addiotnal 7km over the max distance and could only charge the HSe for the incoming journey and that they work a five day week and assuming they work 48 weeks of the year that would be a distance travelled of 1680km a year multiply that by the engine size value in the link provided and for the smallest engine size and we get 673.78 per year. This allowance is then obviiusly payable for more than one year and to all staff employed and we get multiple of this number.

Do the two journeys a day and we get 1347.67 per year per staff.

Now not all staff might have the smallest engine size so lets look at the next size up the mid range. and that number goes to 1606.75 per year per staff.
Its an allowance so unlikely to be removed after year one.
There is a bigger engine size but lets not bother with that one.
Lets move on.

Now lets go further lets assume they get a mileage allowance for the whole amount 52km and can only charge for the inward journey well then we get a yearly cost of 5005.76 for the smallest engine size in the link provided.

We can continue with these numbers if you like?

So we cant actually calculate the numbers without knowing the exact mileages for each employee then?

Plus any of these employees could commute via motorcycle further throwing your "back of a fag packet" calculations out the window.

And also the fact that these are mangagement mileage rates further cast doubt that they would be the numbers used.

Which brings us to the conclusion that you cant prove your claims.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

So we cant actually calculate the numbers without knowing the exact mileages for each employee then?

Plus any of these employees could commute via motorcycle further throwing your "back of a fag packet" calculations out the window.

And also the fact that these are mangagement mileage rates further cast doubt that they would be the numbers used.

Which brings us to the conclusion that you cant prove your claims.

Where did you get the thought these were managment travel rates?


So I take it your going to show how mileage rates are cheaper now are you, or was your whole opposition to this simply because the people involved work for the HSE?

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Where did you get the thought these were managment travel rates?


So I take it your going to show how mileage rates are cheaper now are you, or was your whole opposition to this simply because the people involved work for the HSE?

So you cant prove your own argument then, its ok dont get annoyed.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

So you cant prove your own argument then, its ok dont get annoyed.

Sorry where did you get this was a managament travel rates from?

hatz7

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

nothing to do with entitlement, agreement was made.
Distance in this case was outside the agreed limit, matter went to the labour court to resolve the issue.

Labour court ruled on the matter.

Matter resolved.
Seems like fairly standard industrial relations.

As for your spare me comment you were the one calling for sackings i just expanded on your point. So sack em all to hell with health care i say!

No it has everything to do with the sense of entitlement.

Your pitiful line of 'agreement was made' is exactly the same line used by 'fat cat executives' to justify their ridiculous pay, perks and golden handshakes.

You invoked the nurses/teacher/guard defense to court popular opinion on this thread, don't dent it

This particular situation is yet another example among many of the ingrained sense of entitlement within the PS, they are indeed away with the fairies.

RobbieTheRobber

hatz7 wrote: »

No it has everything to do with the sense of entitlement.

Your pitiful line of 'agreement was made' is exactly the same line used by 'fat cat executives' to justify their ridiculous pay, perks and golden handshakes.

You invoked the nurses/teacher/guard defense to court popular opinion on this thread, don't dent it

This particular situation is yet another example among many of the ingrained sense of entitlement within the PS, they are indeed away with the fairies.

I didnt invoke any gaurds teachers, hell the only time i used the word nurse was to cast abuse.

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Sorry where did you get this was a managament travel rates from?

I cant understand this sentence as it is not grammatically correct.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

I cant understand this sentence as it is not grammatically correct.

Ha ha ha ha

Could you not get it the first time when it was in bold or was it just the second time when i made a typing error?

:D:D

So for a third time!
Where did you get your assumption that the Circular I linked to was management grade travel rates?

Oh and :rolleyes:


Edit: In Post number 32, is begining a sentence with "And" correct grammatically?

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Ha ha ha ha

Could you not get it the first time when it was in bold or was it just the second time when i made a typing error?

:D:D

So for a third time!
Where did you get your assumption that the Circular I linked to was management grade travel rates?


Oh and :rolleyes:


Edit: In Post number 32, is begining a sentence with "And" correct grammatically?

Prove that your calculations are correct and a mileage allowance would be more costly than a payoff in this instance..use facts dont guess like your last effort.

Your determined to focus the debate in other areas while ignoring the deficiencies of your own argument.

These rates would apply to management so they are management rates are they not?

HivemindXX

Why don't you prove the opposite? Don't forget to include the cost of establishing where everyone lives. Don't forget to include a process for dealing with people who move house subsequently.

The case was very clearly laid out, agreement was made, labour court ruled on it, case closed.

You simply seem angry that someone is getting something you are not. It also seems to me that you are arguing round in circles and trying to wind up Robbie so that he'll stop debating you and you can declare yourself the victor.

Jaysoose

HivemindXX wrote: »

Why don't you prove the opposite? Don't forget to include the cost of establishing where everyone lives. Don't forget to include a process for dealing with people who move house subsequently.

The case was very clearly laid out, agreement was made, labour court ruled on it, case closed.

You simply seem angry that someone is getting something you are not. It also seems to me that you are arguing round in circles and trying to wind up Robbie so that he'll stop debating you and you can declare yourself the victor.

Not at all my friend, robbie claims that a payment like this is cheaper than providing mileage etc all im asking is he prove this claim.

Its nothing to do with winding anybody up and im not angry just giving my opinion.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

Prove that your calculations are correct and a mileage allowance would be more costly than a payoff in this instance..use facts dont guess like your last effort.

Your determined to focus the debate in other areas while ignoring the deficiencies of your own argument.

These rates would apply to management so they are management rates are they not?

No they are not management rates, they letter was addressed to all line managers and hr managers, because they are the people who authorise allowances.

They are general HSe travel rates!

Im determined to focus the debate on other areas?
You are the poster who brought grammar into the discussion so please look closer to home before you wave that finger!

How can I use facts, when neither of us have any.

The fact that a mileage allowance would eb ongoing and could run for many years and would have to opened up to all staff not just the current ones affected would realistically point to there being significant savings in this area.

Seeing as there are no facts and your own acceptance of this would lead me to the question of why are you so certain that the one off payment is such a bad method?

OMD

Surely the problem most people have, is the sense of entitlement to money because their place of work has moved. Peoples place of work moves all the time. Most people don't get compensated.

RobbieTheRobber

OMD wrote: »

Surely the problem most people have, is the sense of entitlement to money because their place of work has moved. Peoples place of work moves all the time. Most people don't get compensated.

I was part of an organisation that moved in 2000 from the city centre to blanchardstown, in order to retain staff after moving the organisation offered compensation to all staff being moved in order to retain these skilled people.

This is one example from my own personal experience and I would assume this is by no means an isolated incident!

OMD

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I was part of an organisation that moved in 2000 from the city centre to blanchardstown, in order to retain staff after moving the organisation offered compensation to all staff being moved in order to retain these skilled people.

This is one example from my own personal experience and I would assume this is by no means an isolated incident!

Which is pretty much the opposite of the situation we are in now.

RobbieTheRobber

OMD wrote: »

Which is pretty much the opposite of the situation we are in now.

Not really, the opposite would be that in this instance they want to shed all staff which they dont, so perhaps opposite isnt the right term.

Im not going to get into a discussion about the value of trained medical staff, but I think we can be certain that in this instance they do wish to retain staff.

OMD

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Not really, the opposite would be that in this instance they want to shed all staff which they dont, so perhaps opposite isnt the right term.

Im not going to get into a discussion about the value of trained medical staff, but I think we can be certain that in this instance they do wish to retain staff.

I am certain they do not want the staff. We have a glut of many medical staff and as for the non medical we could shed all of those. l

RobbieTheRobber

OMD wrote: »

I am verdin they do not want the staff. We have a glut of many medical staff and as for the non medical we could shed all of those. l

Ok so sack them all, i agree nurses and their support staff provide in no way any benefit to anyone.


Stupid thread just keeps getting stupider!

OMD

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Ok so sack them all, i agree nurses and their support staff provide in no way any benefit to anyone.


Stupid thread just keeps getting stupider!

We can't sack them that's the problem. Does not change the fact that we have too many nurses. We have one if the youngest populations in Europe and so have the lowest healthcare needs. We should have the lowest number of nurses in Europe. Guess what we have the second highest in the world. That is stupid. Add to that we pay these nurses more than in almost every country in the world. That also is stupid. Reducing nurse numbers. Now that is smart.

RobbieTheRobber

OMD wrote: »

We can't sack them that's the problem. Does not change the fact that we have too many nurses. We have one if the youngest populations in Europe and so have the lowest healthcare needs. We should have the lowest number of nurses in Europe. Guess what we have the second highest. That is stupid. Add to that we pay these nurses more than in almost every country in the world. That also is stupid. Reducing nurse numbers. Now that is smart.

Can you provide me some links so i can verify this for myself?
Or can you even point me in the driection of a credible source for this information.

However that discussion is really completly off topic, and perhaps would be much better suited to a discussion on health care provision!

I am by no means a health care expert in fact i have never had any dealings with the field except as a patient so wouldnt dare to have an opinion on our healthcare beyond knowing what the WHO thinks of us.


As for sacking them i think the terms of their contract might exclude that also relevant legislation in this area might also have some impact in just sacking people.

I believe they would have to be made redundant!