Govt 're-hires dozens of retired civil servants

femur61

Would this happen in other countries or are we just a gullable nation who are a bunch of pushovers? http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/govt-re-hires-dozens-of-retired-civil-servants-551312.html. The PS/CS say they can't endure any more cuts but it seems to me compared to Greece we haven't really endured austerity.

The governement hadn't the foresight to see a void occuring in that all the good people would leave and some departments would be short staffed.

A friend of mine who was unemployed for some time has been hired by a large American employer, he works from 8 in the morning till 9 at night - if he doesn't perform he said he'd be shown the door. I know this has nothing to do with thread but just shows how the private sector works with no deficit.

deise blue

femur61 wrote: »

Would this happen in other countries or are we just a gullable nation who are a bunch of pushovers? http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/govt-re-hires-dozens-of-retired-civil-servants-551312.html. The PS/CS say they can't endure any more cuts but it seems to me compared to Greece we haven't really endured austerity.

The governement hadn't the foresight to see a void occuring in that all the good people would leave and some departments would be short staffed.

A friend of mine who was unemployed for some time has been hired by a large American employer, he works from 8 in the morning till 9 at night - if he doesn't perform he said he'd be shown the door. I know this has nothing to do with thread but just shows how the private sector works with no deficit.

If that's the way the Private Sector works these days then I'm glad to be out of it.
A 13 hour day ( including breaks presumably ? ) is barbaric & an abuse of the Organisation of working time act 1997 - this appalling employer should be reported immediately.
The Government as the employer certainly got things wrong in terms of people having to be rehired but in fairness given the fact tha t voluntary redundancies had to be offered across the entire PS sector then this was always going to happen.

Dirk Gently

deise blue wrote: »

If that's the way the Private Sector works these days then I'm glad to be out of it.
A 13 hour day ( excluding breaks ) is barbaric & an abuse of the Organisation of working time act 1997 - this appalling employer should be reported immediately.
The Government as the employer certainly got things wrong in terms of people having to be rehired but in fairness given the fact tha t voluntary redundancies had to be offered across the entire PS sector then this was always going to happen.

I hope no one tells you about unpaid extra hours, performing random duties and cronic understaffing, not knowing what days you'll work one week to the next or even what time you'll finish at each day until you're actually finished.

The thing is though, you cant report an employer as handy when your private sector and the employer himself doesn't have access to low interest loans paid for by the tax payer to keep him afloat. It's all too easy to end up sacked or replaced with a free intern (thanks government).

If they took early retirement they should have stood aside and let some poor private sector cannon fodder take up the chance of a decent secure job.

superluck

....are we just a gullable nation who are a bunch of pushovers?

Yes and yes.

asdf1234

What austerity did you endure today, femur61?

bobbysands81

Another generic whinge filled meaningless public sector bashing thread with a ridiculous side story of "how tough my friend has it" in the private sector... you even threw Greece into the mix - nice!

A neighbour of mine retired from a major bank recently, got great lump sum, pension etc..., he's now back working for them on a consultancy basis, I must remember to burn him at the stake next time I see him. I genuinely had no idea this practice was so evil.

Always amazes me that folk like you never seem to have a problem with the folk in society who had 'austerity' pass them by with no pay cuts, job losses etc...

RobbieTheRobber

femur61 wrote: »

The PS/CS say they can't endure any more cuts but it seems to me compared to Greece we haven't really endured austerity.

Can you explain this line a bit more for me please, what exactly is it that greece is doing that you think we should aspire to?

Jaysoose

So a public servant retires early and gets paid a lump sum...then rehired on terms thats basically the same salary as before..and people pointing this out as being a bit of a joke is public servant bashing?

superluck

bobbysands81 wrote:

A neighbour of mine retired from a major bank recently, got great lump sum, pension etc..., he's now back working for them on a consultancy basis, I must remember to burn him at the stake next time I see him. I genuinely had no idea this practice was so evil.

A lot of skilled people are unemployed right now, would it not make sense to give a job to someone qualified enough and receiving no income?

People who are in receipt of big pensions don't need to be out working, taking money and business away from people that genuinely need it.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

So a public servant retires early and gets paid a lump sum...then rehired on terms thats basically the same salary as before..and people pointing this out as being a bit of a joke is public servant bashing?

Without pointing out how common this is in other sectors yeah it is a joke!

The real funny points of the OP though are the silly rally to be the new greece and the stupid comparison about his mate who has to work in some conditions etc etc etc.

RobbieTheRobber

superluck wrote: »

A lot of skilled people are unemployed right now, would it not make sense to give a job to someone qualified enough and receiving no income?

People who are in receipt of big pensions don't need to be out working, taking money and business away from people that genuinely need it.

Lack of resources due to reduced numbers in the CS, we dont need people who will take 6 months to get to grips with a position. so sometimes retaining knowledge is the best option.

We all know the governments early retirement scheme was done bad, that isnt a fault of the public servants being rehired though.

Silvio.Dante

As a low paid Civil Servant, it sickens me to see these retirees coming back as 'Consultants'...

superluck

Yeah...it's not like Ireland is being kept on life support by the IMF.

We can afford to pay 100k to someone for doing nothing, stop complaining will ya.

So many begrudgers in Ireland, it's unbelievable, i'm entitled to 100k myself.

wes

femur61 wrote: »

A friend of mine who was unemployed for some time has been hired by a large American employer, he works from 8 in the morning till 9 at night - if he doesn't perform he said he'd be shown the door. I know this has nothing to do with thread but just shows how the private sector works with no deficit.

The interesitng thing about that, is that way of working is actually more inefficent than someone who works 9 to 5:30. People only have so many productive hours in them per day, and chronically over working them to that degree is actually less efficent. Not only is is less efficent for the company, it also effects the health of the employee, and there family life. So not only is the company losing money due to over tired employees, they are negatively effecting there health, for no benefit at all.

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Without pointing out how common this is in other sectors yeah it is a joke!

The real funny points of the OP though are the silly rally to be the new greece and the stupid comparison about his mate who has to work in some conditions etc etc etc.

What do other sectors have to do with this practice in the public sector?

The op does verge into the annoying world of "i know a guy that has to walk to work with no shoes, weres my nama" ..cant argue with that but the central point about the rehires is valid.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

What do other sectors have to do with this practice in the public sector?
.

We have to compare with something, or can you suggest how we say this is right or wrong without comparing to something else?

Jaysoose wrote: »

The op does verge into the annoying world of "i know a guy that has to walk to work with no shoes, weres my nama" ..cant argue with that but the central point about the rehires is valid.

I agree an incentivised retirement scheme where you have to rehire retiring staff is stupid and it shows how the government rather than give enough time to analyse the effects reacted to the medias call for cuts in a bad way.

bobbysands81

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I agree an incentivised retirement scheme where you have to rehire retiring staff is stupid and it shows how the government rather than give enough time to analyse the effects reacted to the medias call for cuts in a bad way.

100% spot on, an essential point in this argument.

Politicians mess up again but hey folks let's side step that and instead tar 300,000 workers with the same brush and use it as an excuse for more inane bashing.

Jaysoose

bobbysands81 wrote: »

100% spot on, an essential point in this argument.

Politicians mess up again but hey folks let's side step that and instead tar 300,000 workers with the same brush and use it as an excuse for more inane bashing.

I think your being oversensitive on this one, the politicians are taking advice from within the public service and this approach would surely have been agreed by the unions. To say its the politicians themselves that have engineered this situation is disengenuous as the information would have had to be collated from within the organisation itself.

I would have thought that department heads/managers would have had to be consulted before this process was engaged as this would affect the amount of staff/quality of service or work that a particular department could produce.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

I think your being oversensitive on this one, the politicians are taking advice from within the public service and this approach would surely have been agreed by the unions. To say its the politicians themselves that have engineered this situation is disengenuous as the information would have had to be collated from within the organisation itself.

I would have thought that department heads/managers would have had to be consulted before this process was engaged as this would affect the amount of staff/quality of service or work that a particular department could produce.

We dont know what advice was sought and what advice was given.

Also from the article we dont know what the scale of the rehiring is.
I mean what amount is "dozens of retired senior civil servants"?
With a workforce of 400,000 and an early retirement scheme surely there has to be some temporary rehiring expected to in the short term fill loss of specialised skills/knowledge.

Thoie

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

We dont know what advice was sought and what advice was given.

Also from the article we dont know what the scale of the rehiring is.
I mean what amount is "dozens of retired senior civil servants"?
With a workforce of 400,000 and an early retirement scheme surely there has to be some temporary rehiring expected to in the short term fill loss of specialised skills/knowledge.

Well, when there are mass voluntary redundancies in the private sector, what normally happens is:

1. People apply for redundancy
2. The company/their managers work out who can best be spared
3. Handover periods are worked out - for example if your role is something that's very time-defined, you might be asked accepted for redundancy, but asked to hang on for 6 months until you finish what you're doing. If someone else needs to learn a particular piece of what you've been doing, you're expected to arrange that training/handover before you leave.
4. Some people will not be accepted for redundancy as their roles are considered vital.
5. Some people may be made redundant, but rehired as contractors on an extremely short term basis (for example, two or three weeks around year end in the case of accountants)

If public servants were given early retirement/redundancy without the associated homework being done by their managers/department leads, then the heads of those teams should get a short, swift kick up the arse.

junk_seller

yet another example of the ageism which exists in this country , young well qualified college graduates sit on the dole while retired people in thier fifties and sixties get rehired

RobbieTheRobber

Thoie wrote: »

Well, when there are mass voluntary redundancies in the private sector, what normally happens is:

1. People apply for redundancy
2. The company/their managers work out who can best be spared
3. Handover periods are worked out - for example if your role is something that's very time-defined, you might be asked accepted for redundancy, but asked to hang on for 6 months until you finish what you're doing. If someone else needs to learn a particular piece of what you've been doing, you're expected to arrange that training/handover before you leave.
4. Some people will not be accepted for redundancy as their roles are considered vital.
5. Some people may be made redundant, but rehired as contractors on an extremely short term basis (for example, two or three weeks around year end in the case of accountants)

If public servants were given early retirement/redundancy without the associated homework being done by their managers/department leads, then the heads of those teams should get a short, swift kick up the arse.

To be fair Thoie that is how a well managed scheme would be run but to say "when there are mass voluntary redundancies in the private sector, what normally happens is:" and then to outline the perfect steps is just delusional.

Are you suggesting that when the private sector does this there are never issues, because I would be of a very different opinion. In fact in a large private organisation i think you would find very similiar precentages being rehired in consultancy roles when they offer incentivised retirement schemes.

caff

Thoie wrote: »

Well, when there are mass voluntary redundancies in the private sector, what normally happens is:

1. People apply for redundancy
2. The company/their managers work out who can best be spared
3. Handover periods are worked out - for example if your role is something that's very time-defined, you might be asked accepted for redundancy, but asked to hang on for 6 months until you finish what you're doing. If someone else needs to learn a particular piece of what you've been doing, you're expected to arrange that training/handover before you leave.
4. Some people will not be accepted for redundancy as their roles are considered vital.
5. Some people may be made redundant, but rehired as contractors on an extremely short term basis (for example, two or three weeks around year end in the case of accountants)

If public servants were given early retirement/redundancy without the associated homework being done by their managers/department leads, then the heads of those teams should get a short, swift kick up the arse.

They could have done this but the unions insisted that all civil servants get an equal opportunity to apply for retirement. Even if an aera was short staffed they had to give employees an opportunity to apply. Croke park agreement strikes again!

RobbieTheRobber

caff wrote: »

They could have done this but the unions insisted that all civil servants get an equal opportunity to apply for retirement. Even if an aera was short staffed they had to give employees an opportunity to apply. Croke park agreement strikes again!

The incentivised retirement schemes were first brought out in 2009 it wasnt until after the 2010 budget and PS pay cuts that there were strikes by PS staff and then after that the CPA.

Dont let facts get in the way of a rant though.



Its bad weather we are having outside isnt it?

Wouldn't have happened but for the CPA!

Jogathon

Well, I believe that most of these dozens (which means really a small amount of people ie not hundreds), are secondary teachers teaching Leaving Cert, and they will be finished by the end of June and will not be re-hired then. So just maybe wait and see if there are still re-hirees in August and kick up a stink then?

Thoie

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are you suggesting that when the private sector does this there are never issues, because I would be of a very different opinion. In fact in a large private organisation i think you would find very similiar precentages being rehired in consultancy roles when they offer incentivised retirement schemes.

I suppose I was thinking of redundancies, rather than early retirement schemes - I don't have any experience of the latter, only the former, where companies are laying people off because they're running out of money fast.

badtinegirl

I dont think this is fair. If the work needs doing and it has to be
done by consultants this work by law has to be sent out for tender.
This is just jobs for the boys again. Billy leaves then sets up billy & assoc
and gets given tax payers money / contracts, I have seen this first hand.

If outsourcing is the way of the future for the Public Sevice it has to be done honestly. I know of situations were none tendered professional consultants are tendering work on behalf of Goverment departemnts.

Hiring consultants to manage consultants seems to be all the rage also.

RobbieTheRobber

badtinegirl wrote: »

I dont think this is fair. If the work needs doing and it has to be
done by consultants this work by law has to be sent out for tender.
This is just jobs for the boys again. Billy leaves then sets up billy & assoc
and gets given tax payers money / contracts, I have seen this first hand.

If outsourcing is the way of the future for the Public Sevice it has to be done honestly. I know of situations were none tendered professional consultants are tendering work on behalf of Goverment departemnts.

Hiring consultants to manage consultants seems to be all the rage also.

This is not whats happening at all!

caff

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The incentivised retirement schemes were first brought out in 2009 it wasnt until after the 2010 budget and PS pay cuts that there were strikes by PS staff and then after that the CPA.

Dont let facts get in the way of a rant though.



Its bad weather we are having outside isnt it?

Wouldn't have happened but for the CPA!

Think you misread my post I wrote strikes as in the provision dealing with the retirement scheme were included in the croke park agreement which is at fault not that any strikes were involved.

badtinegirl

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This is not whats happening at all!

Its what happened in the last place I worked before my contract was not renewed.

RobbieTheRobber

caff wrote: »

Think you misread my post I wrote strikes as in the provision dealing with the retirement scheme were included in the croke park agreement which is at fault not that any strikes were involved.

I dont think you can blame this on the CPA.

The agreement that these staff retired under was the same as the one in 2009
circular attached http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ122009.pdf

This was prior to the CPA so cant be considered as a product of that agreement.

SerialComplaint

caff wrote: »

Think you misread my post I wrote strikes as in the provision dealing with the retirement scheme were included in the croke park agreement which is at fault not that any strikes were involved.

What particular clause or section of the CPA are you referring to here?

RubyRoss

junk_seller wrote: »

yet another example of the ageism which exists in this country , young well qualified college graduates sit on the dole while retired people in thier fifties and sixties get rehired

Ageism? I’m 28 – why should a 58 year old move aside to give me a job? Unless you think the newly employed youth will offer financial support, through taxes and otherwise, for the newly bloated category of retirees from 50 years upwards.

Anyway, the jobs were never going to go to young graduates as you imply:
The people re-hired were high-level people over projects and teachers in the middle of their terms. It’s absurd that the scheme played out like this – and that people contracted to do a job can retire in the middle of it – but it’s not the case that these were jobs which could or would be filled by graduates.

They would have gone to people with experience – i.e. older people: Consultants do not retire to make way for junior doctors. And as for the teachers, there would be outcry if exam teachers were suddenly replaced with graduates in the final months of term.

caff

SerialComplaint wrote: »

What particular clause or section of the CPA are you referring to here?

Chapter 1 1.2

A general moratorium on recruitment and promotion was applied to most of the
Public Service, and incentivised early retirement and career break schemes
introduced;

As far as I can see there was no scope for any departments to refuse a person looking for early retirement.

SerialComplaint

caff wrote: »

Chapter 1 1.2


As far as I can see there was no scope for any departments to refuse a person looking for early retirement.

That's not what you said earlier. What you said earlier was;

caff wrote: »

They could have done this but the unions insisted that all civil servants get an equal opportunity to apply for retirement. Even if an aera was short staffed they had to give employees an opportunity to apply. Croke park agreement strikes again!

So is there anything in the Croke Park Agreement that said that all civil servants had an equal opportunity to get early retirement?

Shea O'Meara

Whole thread boils down to Public Servant bashing.

If I were retired and offered a job, and I could do with the income, I'd jump at it I suppose. And being in the private sector nobody would bat an eyelid. It would be assumed I had a skill set needed by my employer...do you see where I'm going?

Basically because we pay the taxes that pay the wages we have a feeling of ownership over these people, which is not fair as they are private citizens like you and I.
Banks call in former employees as consultants or to sit on a board all the time, but as we view them as private, (although they should all be viewed as state owned in my view) we may give a 'tsk' but nobody loses the head over it.

What ever complete hames the government past or present made deal wise is not the fault of the average public sector employee.

Here's a few targets for you; RTE, nepotistic, don't hire from the public ever, funded by tax payers. The banks, living the life as private companies, many thrown a life jacket by the taxpayers and of course we could look at many politicians.

Or we could poke at public servants and the unemployed spongers *shakes fist at unemployed spongers* :rolleyes:

Bullseye1

This government is a joke. Allowing these strategic people retire in the first place and then rehire them on contract. Someone should be sacked but of course this is Ireland.

And then Noonan has the balls to tell the Greeks to stick with austerity even though their people have voted against it.

RubyRoss

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This government is a joke. Allowing these strategic people retire in the first place and then rehire them on contract. Someone should be sacked but of course this is Ireland.

While I agree it is absurd I doubt the government had much of a choice in the matter and it is hardly the greatest fiasco in the country so why would you expect a resignation for this as opposed to one of Phil Hogan's endeavours?

Bullseye1

RubyRoss wrote: »

While I agree it is absurd I doubt the government had much of a choice in the matter and it is hardly the greatest fiasco in the country so why would you expect a resignation for this as opposed to one of Phil Hogan's endeavours?

He should have resigned also. We have a culture of no accountability in politics in this country.

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I agree an incentivised retirement scheme where you have to rehire retiring staff is stupid and it shows how the government rather than give enough time to analyse the effects reacted to the medias call for cuts in a bad way.

I agree it was a stupid approach, although I think it was more about placating the unions than the media.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

I agree it was a stupid approach, although I think it was more about placating the unions than the media.

I agree , such are the facts concerning Industrial relations negotiations - the employer wants to introduce voluntary redundancies & the Unions insist that everyone can apply for such redundancies - it really it a question of finding an agreeable compromise.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

I agree it was a stupid approach, although I think it was more about placating the unions than the media.

Was it really though, I thought the TUI objected to the deadline imposed and I doubt this placates the majority of union members as the only people who benefit from this are those who were very near to retirement anyway.

For the rest of the union members who subsequently outside of this arrangement retire their pensions will be subject to the reductions under the pension levy.

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Was it really though, I thought the TUI objected to the deadline imposed and I doubt this placates the majority of union members as the only people who benefit from this are those who were very near to retirement anyway.

Yes, a voluntary arrangement of incentivised retirement was the most union friendly manner in which the government could make the necessary reduction in staffing levels.

For the rest of the union members who subsequently outside of this arrangement retire their pensions will be subject to the reductions under the pension levy.

I am confused, I thought the pension levy had nothing to do with pensions and was a pay cut.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

Yes, a voluntary arrangement of incentivised retirement was the most union friendly manner in which the government could make the necessary reduction in staffing levels.

what was the incentive?

sarumite wrote: »

I am confused, I thought the pension levy had nothing to do with pensions and was a pay cut.

Pension is based on final salary, yes?

So if the PS take a paycut (pension levy), when they retire that deduction from their wages(pay cut) is also deducted from their final pension calculations.

So pension equals half of final full pay.
Full pay = pay minus pension levy

Looks like a pay cut, acts like a pay cut and most importantly the government call it a pay cut.

Its a pay cut!

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

what was the incentive?

This has been discussed on boards previously, but in short the pensions on the day of retirement were better then if they were to have retired the very next day instead.

Pension is based on final salary, yes?

My understanding on the pension arrangements is that is i based on final gross salary and that the levy did not effect the gross pay.

I do stand to be corrected if I am wrong.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

This has been discussed on boards previously, but in short the pensions on the day of retirement were better then if they were to have retired the very next day instead.



My understanding on the pension arrangements is that is i based on final gross salary and that the levy did not effect the gross pay.

I do stand to be corrected if I am wrong.

If your right then why were the early retirees better off to retire under this scheme than the day after?

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

If your right then why were the early retirees better off to retire under this scheme than the day after?

If I am right, then the two are unrelated. If I am wrong, then as said I stand to be corrected.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

If I am right, then the two are unrelated. If I am wrong, then as said I stand to be corrected.

I knew i was right and the pay cut affects final pensions but finding something that says that was tough.

So I think I have them
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2010/en.act.2010.0038.PDF
I think this is the act that brings int he reductions in pay and pensions.


Here is a Q&A doc from finance about the reductions in pay and pensions.
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/other/2009/QApublicserpay09.pdf

18. I am due to retire in 2010. What effect will the pay cut have on my
pension?
To manage any increase in the number of retirements before the end of 2009,
the draft legislation on pay adjustments in the public service provides that any
retirements in 2010 would be on existing, pre-cut pay terms. This balances the
needs of the public service and gives assurance to staff who may retire shortly.The legislation also gives the Minister for Finance power to extend the period
if necessary – this will give Departments and Offices scope to plan for and
deal with the effects of increased retirements.
19. What will happen to those retiring after 2010?
The draft legislation on pay adjustments in the public service proposes that
that the Minister may, by statutory instrument, extend the period within which
the cut has no effect on pensions. For existing public servants retiring after
2010 (or any longer period authorised by statutory instrument), the Minister
will consider what legislative changes, if any, will be appropriate and bring
forward proposals as part of the legislation introducing the new single scheme
for new entrants to the public service.

This doc was created prior to the extension until feb of this year, so seeing as the extension of that scheme has now passed one can only assume from the above answers the pensions are now calculated at the post-cut pay rate as oppossed to the pre-cut rate for the early retirees.

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I knew i was right and the pay cut affects final pensions but finding something that says that was tough.

-snip-

That doesn't explain how the pension levy, which doesn't change gross pay, affects a person pension. Above you refer to the pay cut, however I was solely talking about the pension levy and trying not to conflate the two.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

That doesn't explain how the pension levy, which doesn't change gross pay, affects a person pension. Above you refer to the pay cut, however I was solely talking about the pension levy and trying not to conflate the two.

When we talk about either the pension levy or the pay-cut in terms of public service remuneration reductions are we not talking about one and the same thing?

Apart from the pension levy what additonal cuts have been imposed on public servants since 2009?

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

When we talk about either the pension levy or the pay-cut in terms of public service remuneration reductions are we not talking about one and the same thing?[/quote,]

Apart from the pension levy what additonal cuts have been imposed on public servants since 2009?

You and I were talking about how the pension levy affects pensions.