Retired Public Workers filling jobs

nice_guy80

Being home over the New Year I noticed one thing and mentioned it to my parents...

I spotted quite a number of retired public workers who had got new jobs around the town.
eg retired gardai now working as security guards in shops.

anyway, my mother was able to list a lot of retirees that she knew from the public sector who had got jobs around the town in various admin and other positions.

I think this is a disgrace, with all the unemployed people in the country (supposedly) looking for work.
Surely it would make sense to make it more costly for an employer to hire a retired worker? AND that their pension would be directly by the level of earnings in any new job.

(this is not a rant against the public sector as I work in that area myself)

MOD COMMENT:
As this OP specifically pertains to work and jobs, it is being moved to a forum that specifically discusses such topics. It will be moved locked, so that the mods may decide if it is appropriate.

Mrs OBumble

Thanks Black Swan, totally appropriate, so I've unlocked it.



TBH, I cannot see the problem with this: a retired public servant is just another unemployed person. To not hire them because they're old would be age discrimination.

And most likely they do have the skills, experience and contacts to be the best applicant for the job, eg if you were looking for a security guard for a shop, a retired guard would be better than a guy with a year's retail experience who's just done a PSA course.

nice_guy80

my main issue is that they are already receiving a pension and are relatively well off.

However, there are may people out there that desperately need a job.

juan.kerr

I agree this is a disgrace. It shows up the early retirement schemes for what they were - a sham.

amdublin

I don't think it is generally part of a job interview to ask are you in receipt of a pension.

I assume they were the best person for the job.

Faith+1

amdublin wrote: »

I don't think it is generally part of a job interview to ask are you in receipt of a pension.

I assume they were the best person for the job.

I'd say it more of who they know not what they know.:mad:

looksee

You have absolutely no idea about their pension arrangements.

I am a retired public service worker and my monthly pension cheque is €28.

Yes there are reasons for that, but to anyone seeing me working (which I am not) I would be a retired PS worker on a pension.

Anyone who has taken early retirement on a decent package should have the moral backbone to NOT apply for jobs that those of us on the dole would give anything for. Being unemployed through no fault of your own is bad enough, but to see those on a good pension take a job you have gone for, is soul destroying. It's not about the money, it's about selfish greed.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone who has taken early retirement on a decent package should have the moral backbone to NOT apply for jobs that those of us on the dole would give anything for. Being unemployed through no fault of your own is bad enough, but to see those on a good pension take a job you have gone for, is soul destroying. It's not about the money, it's about selfish greed.

But that's the point, how do you know who has 'taken early retirement' and 'on a decent package'? You don't.

You might as well say to people who have been laid off, you've had a go at employment, you should get to the back of the queue for jobs and let some of us that have never had jobs go first. You should have the moral backbone not to apply for x amount of time.

T-K-O

another perk for boys... isn't it grand that so many can have second jobs or retire at an age that allows them take up another position.

amdublin

Faith+1 wrote: »

I'd say it more of who they know not what they know.:mad:

A complete assumption on your part.

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone who has taken early retirement on a decent package should have the moral backbone to NOT apply for jobs that those of us on the dole would give anything for. Being unemployed through no fault of your own is bad enough, but to see those on a good pension take a job you have gone for, is soul destroying. It's not about the money, it's about selfish greed.

How do you know what package they are on?

looksee

OK then, how about this for an unsubstantiated, generalisation: everyone drawing the dole is either an idle layabout or doing nixers. Isn't it well for them.

juan.kerr

I think anyone in receipt of an occupational or public sector pension as a result of employment should pay the higher rate of Income tax (plus the other taxes etc) on all other PAYE type income (i.e. income derived from working while in receipt of a pension) regardless of their marginal rate of tax and tax credits and on top of any tax they may normally be due to pay on their pensions.

imitation

I don't see the problem with this, hows it anything different to a private sector retiree working while drawing down the money they paid in over the years (lets not forget the Public sector worker got his pension as part of the job, used to be relatively common in the private sector). In fact I have to say I would pretty disappointed if I had to work into my retirement (unless it was something I would enjoy, probably not being a security guard). Honestly if they are doing it then they probably need the money.

juan.kerr

looksee wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea about their pension arrangements.

I am a retired public service worker and my monthly pension cheque is €28.

Yes there are reasons for that, but to anyone seeing me working (which I am not) I would be a retired PS worker on a pension.

We obviously don't know what those reasons are, but presumably they are no different than the reasons why an employee may have money taken from their pay cheque at source. For example Credit Union repayments, under payment of tax, garnishment.

These don't affect gross pension in the same way they don't affect gross salary.

juan.kerr

imitation wrote: »

I don't see the problem with this, hows it anything different to a private sector retiree working while drawing down the money they paid in over the years (lets not forget the Public sector worker got his pension as part of the job, used to be relatively common in the private sector). In fact I have to say I would pretty disappointed if I had to work into my retirement (unless it was something I would enjoy, probably not being a security guard). Honestly if they are doing it then they probably need the money.

I think there are two distinct categories - people who took early retirement on VERY favourable terms and then took up further employment and people who retired at full retirement age and then took up further employment.

It's the former that I most object to.

looksee

juan.kerr wrote: »

We obviously don't know what those reasons are, but presumably they are no different than the reasons why an employee may have money taken from their pay cheque at source. For example Credit Union repayments, under payment of tax, garnishment.

These don't affect gross pension in the same way they don't affect gross salary.

The reason is that I worked part time and for only 8 years, there are no deductions. The point is that this thread is based on someone seeing people who they (assume) worked in the public service, and assume they are in reciept of a huge pension. I know three other retired public servants off hand that are in receipt of a significantly lower pension than might be expected, for various reasons.

I say again, you do not know people's circumstances, so do not make sweeping statements or jump to conclusions.

juan.kerr

looksee wrote: »

The reason is that I worked part time and for only 8 years, there are no deductions. The point is that this thread is based on someone seeing people who they (assume) worked in the public service, and assume they are in reciept of a huge pension. I know three other retired public servants off hand that are in receipt of a significantly lower pension than might be expected, for various reasons.

I say again, you do not know people's circumstances, so do not make sweeping statements or jump to conclusions.

You can hardly complain about the amount if you only worked part time for 8 years. This is a red herring, the vast majority would have much longer full time service.

strandroad

nice_guy80 wrote: »

my main issue is that they are already receiving a pension and are relatively well off.

However, there are may people out there that desperately need a job.

I think in some countries if you're retired and take up a job your pension is halted or goes down to some minimum amount. The assumption being that if you want to work you don't need your pension just yet. You can revert to it any time of course.

looksee

juan.kerr wrote: »

You can hardly complain about the amount if you only worked part time for 8 years. This is a red herring, the vast majority would have much longer full time service.

I am not complaining, I am simply stating a fact - you are entirely missing the point. As I have said several times, the issue is that people who are looking on and minding other people's business can have no knowledge of another person's financial situation. A person sees someone retired from the PS and jumps to the conclusion that they are on a full, complete pension.

And even if they are, if they have enough cop on to get another job then let them. As I said earlier in the thread, should people who have been made redundant have to get in a queue behind people who have been unemployed for longer, just to make things fair?

This thread is inevitably just going to be a mish-mash of assumptions and PS bashing.

nice_guy80

imitation wrote: »

I don't see the problem with this, hows it anything different to a private sector retiree working while drawing down the money they paid in over the years (lets not forget the Public sector worker got his pension as part of the job, used to be relatively common in the private sector). In fact I have to say I would pretty disappointed if I had to work into my retirement (unless it was something I would enjoy, probably not being a security guard). Honestly if they are doing it then they probably need the money.

Going from a few names of the retirees who are working, as mentioned by my mother, they don't need the money.

wmpdd3

In the case I know of the male retired early and took another job, he had the new job he retired.
The tax was so high that after 6 months, his wife left her job as it was better for them to share their tax credits.

He's less than 60, but I'm not sure what age exactly.

funnights74

I work as a very lowly paid public servant and i know of a few cases of retired public servants who retired with mighty fine pay offs. and they were later re-employed in the public service in the same job they had left, all be it on a contractual/advisory basis, which in itself has tax perks.
These positions cannot be made available on a full-time basis but there are ways around everything.

monkeypants

looksee wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea about their pension arrangements.

I am a retired public service worker and my monthly pension cheque is €28.

Yes there are reasons for that, but to anyone seeing me working (which I am not) I would be a retired PS worker on a pension.

My Da would see you and raise you. He worked as a teacher once in Northern Ireland in the 60s. For this, he receives a montly pension of £11 from Big Liz. He has to fill out a tax form each year, as does my Ma, declaring this £11 income. I've never seen the form, but they say it's over twenty pages.

To add insult, each year the Revenue takes the couple of euro that they send and puts it against their tax liability for the coming year rather than the one just gone and then sends them a bill for the year just gone. Each year they have to phone, write, etc. and explain the situation. Last time my Ma enclosed an A4 sheet printed with something like "This is not to be set against liability for the coming year" and it was ignored.

Wishbone Ash

mhge wrote: »

I think in some countries if you're retired and take up a job your pension is halted or goes down to some minimum amount

That can happen here if one retires and is subsequently rehired by the same employer.

A few points I'd like to make:

1. I work in the public service. We have rehired a few retired staff back into the same jobs simply because we couldn't get any younger people interested in the ad hoc nature of the shifts. (Retired staff are also vastly experienced in what they do).

2. For many years I worked in a second job in the private sector in conjunction with my main employment. I didn't look for this job. The employer approached me and were delighted with the quality of my work. They constantly finding it difficult to retain newly employed people as the job often involved 4am starts. Their best employees were those who has other jobs also.

3. If I was an employer, I'd be particularly interested in employing retired people. In my experience, they generally tend to have more skills than those who are long term unemployed and it must be remembered that an employer has no moral obligation to reduce the dole queue - it's all about the bottom line. If an employer found it was more profitable to employ unemployed non-retired people then that's what they'd be doing.

Mrs OBumble

Faith+1 wrote: »

I'd say it more of who they know not what they know.:mad:

And who they know is probably part of what makes them attractive to empoyers: an employee who had contacts inside the system is more useful than one who doesn't.

I don't think that it's right for people to go back as contractors to their previous jobs - but that is morally the fault of the organisations, not of the individual (ex) employees.

imitation

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And who they know is probably part of what makes them attractive to empoyers: an employee who had contacts inside the system is more useful than one who doesn't.

I don't think that it's right for people to go back as contractors to their previous jobs - but that is morally the fault of the organisations, not of the individual (ex) employees.

Its just a numbers game I guess, an employee goes under one column, a contractor another. The company (or government in this case really) gets to say they are spending less on payroll, and that should they need to cut there budget quickly they can get rid of the contractor. The reality is probably the contractor ends up there longer term, costing more per hour.

Hootanany

imitation wrote: »

I don't see the problem with this, hows it anything different to a private sector retiree working while drawing down the money they paid in over the years (lets not forget the Public sector worker got his pension as part of the job, used to be relatively common in the private sector). In fact I have to say I would pretty disappointed if I had to work into my retirement (unless it was something I would enjoy, probably not being a security guard). Honestly if they are doing it then they probably need the money.

That's a disgrace .

imitation

Hootanany wrote: »

That's a disgrace .

Whats a disgrace ? Somebody who wants to work should be able to get work, full stop. If there is a shortage of jobs it should be the government getting the blame, not retirees, forriners or any other social minority people don't like.

Procrastastudy

imitation wrote: »

Whats a disgrace ? Somebody who wants to work should be able to get work, full stop. If there is a shortage of jobs it should be the government getting the blame, not retirees, forriners or any other social minority people don't like.

+1 Next people will be suggesting we reinstate the marriage bar.