Government attack on private sector stepped up

Atilathehun

Not content, with stealing private sector wealth, in the "temporary", pension levy announced earlier this year, the government it seems will now, transfer the burden of sick pay, from the exchequer to private sector employers.
The dead hand of Labour once again on the levers of power.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1115/1224307583814.html

Employers to pay for sick leave in Burton move to save €150m

EMPLOYERS WILL have to pay the first four weeks of their staff’s sick pay under proposals drawn up by Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton to shave €150 million off her budget.

Ms Burton is proposing to transfer responsibility for paying sick pay from the Department of Social Protection to individual employers in the first month of illness, The Irish Times understands.
The plan, which would make a substantial inroad into the approximately €700 million in cuts Ms Burton has to make in next month’s budget, is likely to be strongly opposed by employers’ groups.
It was one of a number of cost-saving measures affecting social welfare which were discussed at a special pre-budget meeting of Ministers yesterday. The proposal would take at least a year to get up and running but is projected to save the exchequer €150 million in 2013.
Ms Burton argues that the current system under which the State picks up the tab for most employee sickness is an anomaly, and differs sharply from the practice in many other countries.
Under the current system, an employee must apply for illness benefit within seven days of becoming ill. To qualify, the employee must have paid at least 104 weeks’ PRSI or the equivalent. No payment is made for the first three days of illness.
Thereafter, the employer usually continues to pay the employee but is reimbursed for illness benefit by the department. The current rate of payment is €188 a week for a person earning over €300 a week, but the payment is smaller for lower-paid workers. Workers with a spouse and children receive high sums, and may qualify for medical cards and supplementary social welfare. Some, but not all, employers make up the balance of salary for a specified period.
Depending on the number of PRSI contributions the employee has paid, sickness benefit is paid for up to two years, or for as long as the person is sick in the case of some workers who fell ill before 2009.
In the UK, there is a system of statutory sick pay, under which an employer is obliged to pay a flat rate of sick pay for at least 26 weeks. In the Netherlands, the employer alone is responsible for the payment to sick workers for the first two years of illness. The government only steps in when the employer is unable to pay sickness money due to “financial failure”. The attraction of the proposal for Ms Burton is that it allows for substantial savings in the social protection budget without affecting core entitlements.
Social protection is the Government’s biggest-spending department, paying welfare, pension and benefits to 1.4 million people each month and with an annual budget of €21 billion. The bulk of its spending is on welfare. As the Government has committed itself not to cut the rates of primary social welfare payments, it will have to find alternative savings within the department.
Ms Burton launched an anti-fraud initiative in September in which she contended that new fraud-control measures could achieve as much as €625 million in savings next year. However, any savings will be separate from the €700 million in cuts required. In preparation for the December budget, the Cabinet yesterday devoted a special meeting to discuss Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin’s wide-ranging proposals for reform in the public service.
It is understood that discussion during the seven-hour meeting focused on proposals to reduce the number of State agencies and quangos. Early plans suggested some 102 bodies should be axed or merged, but the number has since been reduced to under 50.
Mr Howlin is also expected to outline his proposals for reduction in public sector numbers on Thursday. One measure is expected to set new levels of annual leave for all existing staff across the public service, ranging from a minimum of 22 days and a maximum of 32.

bobbysands81

I applaud the sentiment and think (in theory) it's a good idea, employers need to look after their staff better.

However, I think this is going to backfire and be a disaster for older/more infirm people (and the weakest and most vulnerable in society). This new rule could lead to an upsurge in medicals in companies and lead to younger people being employed at the expense of older people as they are far less likely to be out on sick leave. It will be within the interest of employers to screen their staff more thoroughly to try and weed out those that may cost them money.

In the long run I think this will make companies even less interested in the welfare of their staff.

A disastrous idea.

Atilathehun

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I applaud the sentiment and think it's a good idea, employers need to look after their staff better.

However, I think this is going to backfire and be a disaster for older/more infirm people (and the weakest and most vulnerable in society). This new rule could lead to an upsurge in medicals in companies and lead to younger people being employed at the expense of older people as they are far less likely to be out on sick leave. It will be within the interest of employers to screen their staff more thoroughly to try and weed out those that may cost them money.

In the long run I think this will make companies even less interested in the welfare of their staff.

It will make companies, less interested in employing people, never mind interested in their welfare.
Highest energy rates in Europe, highest property rates in Europe, highest insurance costs in Europe, highest minimum wage in the world, and now this.

irishh_bob

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I applaud the sentiment and think (in theory) it's a good idea, employers need to look after their staff better.

However, I think this is going to backfire and be a disaster for older/more infirm people (and the weakest and most vulnerable in society). This new rule could lead to an upsurge in medicals in companies and lead to younger people being employed at the expense of older people as they are far less likely to be out on sick leave. It will be within the interest of employers to screen their staff more thoroughly to try and weed out those that may cost them money.

In the long run I think this will make companies even less interested in the welfare of their staff.

A disastrous idea.

ireland is ageist against the young , anything that encourages hiring of young people is a good thing imo

RichardAnd

irishh_bob wrote: »

ireland is ageist against the young , anything that encourages hiring of young people is a good thing imo

Whilst I agree with you on this one, no sector of society should have an advantage over any other. Governments fiddling with things through legislation can't be a good thing.

Riskymove

apparantly only 30% of SMEs have sick pay schemes anyway so it wont affect a large sector of workers

its also worth noting that this will also affect the Public Sector for staff hired since 1995

ardmacha

In the UK, there is a system of statutory sick pay, under which an employer is obliged to pay a flat rate of sick pay for at least 26 weeks. In the Netherlands, the employer alone is responsible for the payment to sick workers for the first two years of illness

We often hear about comparison with these places re the PS, is the comparison not also appropriate for the private sector?

BeeDI

irishh_bob wrote: »

ireland is ageist against the young , anything that encourages hiring of young people is a good thing imo

transferring cost from the state to private sector employers, will do nothing to improve employment prospects of either young or old!

It's a sad day, when a government with such a massive majority in parliment, do not have the will or the balls to do what should be done .... cut SW rates. That's how whiney, moaney, Joan Burton should make the cuts required of her department.
What does she do instead .............. throw a tax on employers and employment

HellFireClub

I started a business last year and I don't have many employees yet although we are going very well, (probably because we have been obsessed with keeping costs down), but if faced with the choice of accepting this shift of burden in relation to sick leave or letting someone go, it would be an absolute no brainer, and it wouldn't be a thing of discriminating against anyone, it's just that the business model doesn't extend itself to paying someone to be sick for a month and then having to pay someone else to cover them.

All this will do is result in arbitary job losses, so if you get sick, you could end up losing your job.

Riskymove

HellFireClub wrote: »

but if faced with the choice of accepting this shift of burden in relation to sick leave or letting someone go, it would be an absolute no brainer, and it wouldn't be a thing of discriminating against anyone, it's just that the business model doesn't extend itself to paying someone to be sick for a month and then having to pay someone else to cover them.

so a very good, productive employee gets the flu or is in a car crash or whatever and you'd sack them rather than lose a week or two's pay??

and risk hiring someone else less capable?

makes little sense to me

BeeDI

Riskymove wrote: »

so a very good, productive employee gets the flu or is in a car crash or whatever and you'd sack them rather than lose a week or two's pay??

and risk hiring someone else less capable?

makes little sense to me

And the number of people you emply is .................... ???
Take a retail business, already barely keeping the doors open.
It is lumped with the highest min wage in world, plus high rent, rates, insurance etc,.
Now the state wants to add another cost to that business. IT IS UTTER MADNESS. In the current climate, it just defies all logic.

Riskymove

BeeDI wrote: »

And the number of people you emply is .................... ???
Take a retail business, already barely keeping the doors open.

is that kind of business likely to offer sick pay to its employees?

as mentioned above, some 70% of SME do not, even with the current arrangements

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

We often hear about comparison with these places re the PS, is the comparison not also appropriate for the private sector?

I would say yes, they should be. Though we often hear those comparison shouted down as well. Whether those people who shout down the comparison will maintain their consistency and oppose these measure remains to be seen.

irishh_bob

RichardAnd wrote: »

Whilst I agree with you on this one, no sector of society should have an advantage over any other. Governments fiddling with things through legislation can't be a good thing.

goverments fiddle with endless number of things from restricting the number of practising GP,s to giving ESB a monopoly on energy infrastructure maintenance , i dont see things changing anytime soon

irishh_bob

BeeDI wrote: »

transferring cost from the state to private sector employers, will do nothing to improve employment prospects of either young or old!

It's a sad day, when a government with such a massive majority in parliment, do not have the will or the balls to do what should be done .... cut SW rates. That's how whiney, moaney, Joan Burton should make the cuts required of her department.
What does she do instead .............. throw a tax on employers and employment

the media has no problem with the goverment hammering middle ireland private sector employment crators , never did , hit social wellfare and you have vincent browne on your case five nights per week

gbee

I think this is why we need health assurance more than insurance. We all WILL get sick.

HellFireClub

Riskymove wrote: »

so a very good, productive employee gets the flu or is in a car crash or whatever and you'd sack them rather than lose a week or two's pay??

and risk hiring someone else less capable?

makes little sense to me

It's not that I'd want to, you have to look at the other side of the thing, I've a delicate new start up business that simply CANNOT AFFORD to pay someone for a month while they are not around and then pay someone else to replace them. It's the last thing I'd want to do but you have to understand the context, in that I'm not even paying myself minimum wage at the moment because every cent has to go back into the business, this is all normal for a start-up business by the way.

But as for being able to pay someone who is out on short/medium term leave/absence due to illness, I just couldn't afford to do it, not a hope, nothing personal or vindictive in letting someone go under those circumstances, what do I do, keep them on and pump my profit into this situation and then risk the entire business going down the tubes??? And don't forget, as a self employed person, should that eventuality come to pass, there isn't a f*cking hope of me getting the dole if my business is dragged down in the early days by being burdened by excess costs, of which there are already enough of in this state at the moment!!!

Sadly people in this country, up to the highest level, do not understand the kind of personal sacrifices that go into starting up a small business operation in this state, and I'm not directing that at you RiskyMove, I'm directing that at left wing institutionalised buffoons like Joan Burton who have never had to make a financial sacrifice or risk in their entire careers, who don't get the savage costs of everything in this country, from the ESB down to commerical rates, to labour, they genuinely haven't a bulls notion of what people running business have to try to cope with at the moment.

Tora Bora

With unemployment at 15% and rising, this has to be the single most stupid decision since the bank guarantee.
Stupid and cowardly. Avoid the real issues, kind of thinking. Do it the labour way .............. tax the wealth generating part of the economy. I mean, how dare people work hard and employ a few people. :mad:

hmmm

This will presumably be listed as a government "saving" and not a "tax increase" which it is. It's a real cop-out by FG if they allow this sort of thing, if the government are going to bring in "savings" then let them be real savings, not simply shifting the burden onto other parts of society.

When people voted Labour into power they knew what they were getting, they knew that the elite public sector would be untouched and they knew that the private sector and social welfare recipients would shoulder all the burden. A FG/FF government is probably the only way we'll dig ourselves out of this mess without destroying the private sector.

hmmm

HellFireClub wrote: »

I'm directing that at left wing institutionalised buffoons like Joan Burton who have never had to make a financial sacrifice or risk in their entire careers, who don't get the savage costs of everything in this country, from the ESB down to commerical rates, to labour, they genuinely haven't a bulls notion of what people running business have to try to cope with at the moment.

I don't think they care. They've grown up in left wing politics which sees people like yourself as parasites on the "working class", and the job of the state is to redistribute your income to people they see as more deserving. In particular, they inhabit of world of frustrated (but intelligent) people who've opted for "safe" careers (particularly in the PS), and who are now envious of any success you may have achieved because they see themselves as more intelligent and therefore automatically more deserving.

rodento

Current system is an administrative nightmare, major savings will be made changing it

irishh_bob

hmmm wrote: »

I don't think they care. They've grown up in left wing politics which sees people like yourself as parasites on the "working class", and the job of the state is to redistribute your income to people they see as more deserving. In particular, they inhabit of world of frustrated (but intelligent) people who've opted for "safe" careers (particularly in the PS), and who are now envious of any success you may have achieved because they see themselves as more intelligent and therefore automatically more deserving.

not just more intelligent , more ethical and worthy

murphaph

I shook my head in disbelief reading that.

In good times this might (probably would be) a good move but not when you desperately need to create employment as we do. This will make SMEs especially very hesitant to hire.
"That new guy we'd like to hire off the dole is an unknown quantity, might be sick the whole time, could sink our small firm, ah let's just stick with the 4 guys we have now."

Completely the wrong measure to take. This is not a saving anyway, it's clearly a new tax. The government really are doing their damndest to avoid touching the sacred cows. I am starting to genuinely believe that they are leading us towards another Greek style chaotic mess.

To all the public servants and welfare recipients who claim you can't possibly live on €10 a week less-don't come fcuking crying on here when the country has a gun to its head to cut all expenditure by 40% over night and your pay and benefits reflect that.

Tigger

I no longer employ staff because I simply cannot afford to. I was employing a lad at 11 euro and hour and he was worth it but anyone who you start at 9 an hour is either not worth having around it is only looking to get back working as a stop gap.
The level of go to work do as little as possaible and go home out there is very dangerous. I have gone sick one day this millenieum and that was because one of my beat mates got married I was a groomsmen and I accidentally drank too much . I ended up calling my boss and telling him I was sorry and drunk at five in the morning.

I cared a lot a out what I was doing and I just don't see it in the peopple comming up at the moment

I feel that what I see Is know. By the americian and Germany Pharma here and that the know that the four weeks would be a reality rather than a risk

spank_inferno

Would it make much of a difference anyway?
Long term illness (30+days) must be quite rare.

Do many people still work in businesses with paid sick leave?

I work in a very large telecoms company & no one here gets sick pay.
If your not here.... for whatever reason, you don't get paid.

Riskymove

HellFireClub wrote: »

But as for being able to pay someone who is out on short/medium term leave/absence due to illness, I just couldn't afford to do it, not a hope, nothing personal or vindictive in letting someone go under those circumstances, what do I do, keep them on and pump my profit into this situation and then risk the entire business going down the tubes???

I do understand the idea of what you are saying

what I dont understand is what will change because of the proposals.

Do you curently pay sick pay to staff?

If not, then nothing changes

If you do, then you have a choice - don't pay sick pay anymore

surely that's preferable to sacking people for needing to be out for a week or two due to an illness, operation, accident etc


an anothe rpoint I wonder what the legal position would be around firing people for being sick?

Tipp Man

Surely the 8.5% employers PRSI paid to the government was to cover the government paying sick leave.

So while the government reduced employers PRSI back in July they are now effectively increasing it again but in a different manner

Tipp Man

ardmacha wrote: »

We often hear about comparison with these places re the PS, is the comparison not also appropriate for the private sector?

to make a fair comparison we would need to look at the PRSI (or equivalant) that Dutch and UK emloyers are paying

I don't know those rates but to get a proper picture we would need to compare the whole picture

Turnstyle

another nail in the coffin for small business's... like the last government the current one has done sweet FA to try and help out small business's and job creators all the while they spout crap about how its SME's that will save our economy.. this goes straight against the grain of why we pay employers PRSI on behalf of employees in the first place, its supposed to be insurance.... i also heard on the radio this morning that they plan to cut the redundancy rebate to employers from 60% to 30% !!! so if a company is finding things tough and has to cut back on staff numbers they will suffer further cash flow blow, insane...

HellFireClub

The only response to this kind of thing now at this stage is for small business people to start acting together and becoming some kind of a political force in this country.

Who in the Dail is standing up for the hardest working, most stressed and most selfless people in the state, the folks who are trying, against every f*cking impediment that this and the last government can generate against small business people, to keep the doors open???

People should be seeing at this stage that the SFA and ISME are simply too ingratiated within the old corrupt social partnership structures to be able to effectively confront this obvious policy of attacking small business people. And don't forget, when they do manage to push you over the edge and out of business, do you think you'll be entitled to any dole or state support?!? In my hoop you will!!!

Paulzx

HellFireClub wrote: »

do you think you'll be entitled to any dole or state support?!? In my hoop you will!!!

That's one thing i've never understood about the dole sytem. If you are self employed and pay all your taxes and contributions and are completely legit why have you no automatic entitlement to dole like an employee who loses their job.

I've never been self employed but i can't get my head around how if a self employed person who has one employee goes bust, his employee will automatically get the dole but the guy who owns the business doesn't.

Whats the actaul logic behind this? Am i missing something obvious?

Geuze

Self-employed pay PRSI class S at 3%.

This does not entitle them to JB.

Employed pay PRSI class A at 4%.

www.welfare.ie

namenotavailablE

Wrong- they used to pay at 3% but it's now 4%.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/SW14/sw14_jul11/Pages/ClassS.aspx

Paulzx

Geuze wrote: »

Self-employed pay PRSI class S at 3%.

This does not entitle them to JB.

Employed pay PRSI class A at 4%.

www.welfare.ie

Just standardise it.

That still doesn't justify complete elimination from automatic dole. A contribution is being paid so why is there no entitlement

Duke Leonal Felmet

I am beginning to question the potency of a left and right coalition. Perhaps things will improve if we move to a more partisan system, with a FG dominated right, and Labour dominated left.

bleg

This is a good, practical idea that will save a tidy sum. Of course, employers and employers groups will proclaim the end of the world.

CiaranC

Amusing how many are attacking 'the left" for removing socialised sick pay from the states expenditure. This is reducing social welfare like so many wanted, and now everyone complains about it.

Seems everyone wants socialism for themselves but for nobody else.

bleg

CiaranC wrote: »

Amusing how many are attacking 'the left" for removing socialised sick pay from the states expenditure. This is reducing social welfare like so many wanted, and now everyone complains about it.

Seems everyone wants socialism for themselves but for nobody else.

Yea I'm pretty happy about it. Getting rid of State payments. I actually think absenteeism will fall as a result of this. The effects will be more visible to employees.

HellFireClub

CiaranC wrote: »

Amusing how many are attacking 'the left" for removing socialised sick pay from the states expenditure. This is reducing social welfare like so many wanted, and now everyone complains about it.

Seems everyone wants socialism for themselves but for nobody else.

You are forgetting the small little matter of employees paying income tax and a Universal Social Charge now, and the employer paying 10.75% employers PRSI on the gross salary of every employee. If it is a "social welfare benefit" it is paid for hansomly by both the employee and the employer, to the state every month, and on things like what are probably the most generous pension payments in the developed world, to TD's and ex presidents who are still not even at retirement age yet?!?!?!? Have you tried accessing your pension before you retire, I was unemployed last year and tried to access my private pension fund to invest in a new business and it's completely illegal!!! But these folks, they are exempt from this legislation and they get the taxpayers to pay their 100K-200K pensions a year before they are even near retirement age!!!

This government now want to take that money away from the social benefit that has already been paid for by both the employee and the employer, to continue bailing out the private unsecured investors of a bank that has been closed down, and p*ssing and squandering taxpayers money all over the place on things like the Croke Park Agreement.

What's the next step, they hand the employer another bill at the end of the month for the teachers working in the school down the road, or for the queue of pensioners getting the state pension every week???

WHEN ARE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY GOING TO WAKE UP?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

HellFireClub

bleg wrote: »

Yea I'm pretty happy about it. Getting rid of State payments. I actually think absenteeism will fall as a result of this. The effects will be more visible to employees.

What Burton is proposing here isn't the "getting rid of state payments", in respect of sick leave. It's leaving the entitlement fully in place but handing someone else the bill for it, after it's already been paid for by both the employee and the employer!

I've no issue with removing the benefit, but don't hand someone else the bill for it! You've been hansonly paid for the provision of the benefit by not one but two parties, so either you pony up and deliver it or else do away with it altogether!

Turnstyle

bleg wrote: »

This is a good, practical idea that will save a tidy sum. Of course, employers and employers groups will proclaim the end of the world.

troll

people want social welfare cuts but in the right places, i.e. career dole merchants, welfare cheats and the band wagon jumpers that are working/drawing & destroying the trade of above board business people. Are we going to see a reduction in employers PRSI to reflect this? unlikely!

This is just more of spineless politicians targeting the under represented and causing more damage to a struggling economy in the process, should we really expect anything else though from disconnected civil servants who know jack sh1t about business

HellFireClub

Turnstyle wrote: »

troll

people want social welfare cuts but in the right places, i.e. career dole merchants, welfare cheats and the band wagon jumpers that are working/drawing & destroying the trade of above board business people. Are we going to see a reduction in employers PRSI to reflect this? unlikely!

This is just more of spineless politicians targeting the under represented and causing more damage to a struggling economy in the process, should we really expect anything else though from disconnected civil servants who know jack sh1t about business

This is EXACTLY the problem, you hit the nail on the head here with the word: "UNDER-REPRESENTED"!!!

Small business people and the folks/employees they work with, it's about time people started organising and coming together, on a national scale and standing up to these absolutely pointless antics on the private sector middle class and the employment stucture that most of the middle class work in which is small business.

The public sector middle class have their Croke Park Agreement that is protecting every single one of them from this kind of inordinate stupidity that will only put more private sector middle class people on the dole queues.

And who is paying for the greed that is held in place by the Croke Park Agreement?!? 11 days a year annual sick leave in the public sector still, who is paying for the financial cost of that inefficiency?!?

Burton says the country has no money, I'm not a bit surprised when an absence level of 11 days a year is tolerated within every government department.

This whole agenda needs to be confronted and pushed back and any further payments, taxes, hidden charges, or anything else of any sort from small businesses need to be knocked on the head until such a time as the Croke Park Agreement is dismantled and even the most glaring inefficiencies that still exist 3 years into a recession are seen to be dealt with.