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)

Black Swan

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.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

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.

Take an example of a School teacher or a Garda (apologies for using them, but they are examples only). They are aged 45 to 50. If they have served 25 to 30 years, it's fair to assume that they have a pension that is about an average industrial wage. They are the ones who I would hope would NOT take positions that would be a lifeline for an unemployed person. One who has been made redundant on a decent package, cannot claim full dole and can only sigh on stamps for a set time - 12 months I think, but am open to correction. If a person takes up a job, either full or part time, while bringing in a living income in the form of a pension, they are being greedy and selfish.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

Take an example of a School teacher or a Garda (apologies for using them, but they are examples only). They are aged 45 to 50. If they have served 25 to 30 years, it's fair to assume that they have a pension that is about an average industrial wage. They are the ones who I would hope would NOT take positions that would be a lifeline for an unemployed person. One who has been made redundant on a decent package, cannot claim full dole and can only sigh on stamps for a set time - 12 months I think, but am open to correction. If a person takes up a job, either full or part time, while bringing in a living income in the form of a pension, they are being greedy and selfish.

Lets not take that example. They would have been working from between age 15 to 20 in that case, in permanent, full employment since day one.

fg1406

Not everyone who has retired from the public sector is on a great pension. Women especially have lower pensions due to having to leave with marriage bar and working less hours/time off due to child rearing. Those paying class A stamp even more so. Pensions as low as €1k-€2k per annum are more common than one may think.

Wanderer2010

This is a sickening practice that forces many young people just out of college and looking for experience abroad to emigrate because Mrs Power down the road who has been teaching for 30yrs walks straight back into her old school or Mr Jones the Garda with 25yrs under him walks back to his old station, so they not only get their pension, their (in some cases) lump sum for retiring from public sector but now they have a THIRD income and they dont even need the money whereas the student who wants to teach or be a Guard is pushed aside for the old boys/girls club, its dowright wrong to do this and no employer should rehire and old employee on this basis..

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

that those of us on the dole would give anything for.

Cop the f**k on, will ya?

If the job spec is 10 years experience in X, Y, and Z, as well as a shed load of certs, I'm guessing that most of those on the dole won't have them. Added to this, the retired people don't need to be trained up.

As for the Gardai, some of them have no life, and thus when they leave the force, they just continue working, as it's all they know.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Mr Jones the Garda with 25yrs under him walks back to his old station, so they not only get their pension, their (in some cases) lump sum for retiring from public sector but now they have a THIRD income and they dont even need the money whereas the student who wants to teach or be a Guard is pushed aside for the old boys/girls club, its dowright wrong to do this and no employer should rehire and old employee on this basis..

So, what; they should wait until someone trains up from scratch to a superintendent, as opposed to rehiring someone who knows the locals, how things work, and who most likely won't be "sick" the odd weekend night?

repsol

nice_guy80 wrote: »

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)

Maybe the ex PS workers were the only suitable applicants or the only applicants as unemployed people might not be prepared to work for low wages and lose their medical cards etc.There are loads on the dole who never look for work.

imitation

While its not ideal that somebody can effectively end up getting paid twice to do the same job, if you look at it logically across any big organization its going to happen somewhere.

- X signs up to the gardai, signs his contract stating he gets a salary and a pension, its a agreed at some path along his career he will have early retirement at 60.
- X works for 30 years, rise through the ranks and gets promoted, extra responsibility extra pay
- X Retires at 60 as agreed
- The Gardai realize that they are short staffed / x was a specialist who was not replaced / need help with training / insert any other multitude of reasons they would need to keep somebody with 30 years knowledge.

How can it be gotten around ?

They could not hire him, but it would be pretty much be a case of shooting themselves in the foot.

The could suspend on his pension while hes working, but they are the ones at loose end so hes effectively working for free for there benefit. As well as this, hes 60, hes only got so many years left, its not like he can suspend his death for another 10 years.

nice_guy80

imitation wrote: »

While its not ideal that somebody can effectively end up getting paid twice to do the same job, if you look at it logically across any big organization its going to happen somewhere.

- X signs up to the gardai, signs his contract stating he gets a salary and a pension, its a agreed at some path along his career he will have early retirement at 60.
- X works for 30 years, rise through the ranks and gets promoted, extra responsibility extra pay
- X Retires at 60 as agreed
- The Gardai realize that they are short staffed / x was a specialist who was not replaced / need help with training / insert any other multitude of reasons they would need to keep somebody with 30 years knowledge.

How can it be gotten around ?

They could not hire him, but it would be pretty much be a case of shooting themselves in the foot.

The could suspend on his pension while hes working, but they are the ones at loose end so hes effectively working for free for there benefit. As well as this, hes 60, hes only got so many years left, its not like he can suspend his death for another 10 years.

gardai can retire after 50, with 30 years service. Many of them retire earlier to pursue other options (which I have no problem with)
I have not singled out gardai or teachers
it refers to all public sector workers - especially higher

repsol

Deleted User wrote: »

Take an example of a School teacher or a Garda (apologies for using them, but they are examples only). They are aged 45 to 50. If they have served 25 to 30 years, it's fair to assume that they have a pension that is about an average industrial wage. They are the ones who I would hope would NOT take positions that would be a lifeline for an unemployed person. One who has been made redundant on a decent package, cannot claim full dole and can only sigh on stamps for a set time - 12 months I think, but am open to correction. If a person takes up a job, either full or part time, while bringing in a living income in the form of a pension, they are being greedy and selfish.

A Garda will not get a full pension with 25 years service and cannot retire at 45 unless he is invalided so your example is irrelevant.I am a PS worker and my duty is to provide for my family.If I want to work when I retire in order to give them a better life/education that is my right and my business."Lifelines" for those on the dole are not my concern.Maybe you would like me to tell my daughter that she cannot go to university because I donated my job to another family?As a parent my job is to do my very best for MY family and give them the best life and education I can.Then hopefully that education will mean they can get a good job on merit rather than needing someone else to donate it to them.You say "greedy and selfish",I say responsible and hard working.

saiint

agree with op

luckily for me i have a job and im young
but the fact is
with all the unemployment , theirs only going to be more when more students finish their degree
even grants dont cover the full cost of college so odds are they wont go back
sure their would be no point
they would have no income
living off their parents for years
they wont recieve social welfare either

its sad to be honest
a few years ago students and young people could actually get a job no problem if they tried
and theirs no point saying you can get one if you look
ya course you can
probably part time and thats if you have 5+years experience


of course theris situations where retired people would be at an advantage and if a company of a sector needs them
but seriously when they get too old for it in 10 years time or 5 years time
that could of been some young students job who just finished college whos now living off the socail welfare and now has to start a job at a later life where he wont get as many years working for said job that he wanted
their for giving him less pension causing him to do the exact same thing when he retires

its a circle and a horrible circle at that
id leave this country tomorrow if i got offered a job

Iago

Deleted User wrote: »

Take an example of a School teacher or a Garda (apologies for using them, but they are examples only). They are aged 45 to 50. If they have served 25 to 30 years, it's fair to assume that they have a pension that is about an average industrial wage. They are the ones who I would hope would NOT take positions that would be a lifeline for an unemployed person. One who has been made redundant on a decent package, cannot claim full dole and can only sigh on stamps for a set time - 12 months I think, but am open to correction. If a person takes up a job, either full or part time, while bringing in a living income in the form of a pension, they are being greedy and selfish.

This is nonsense to be frank. They're available to work and they're hired to do a job, what's the problem?

A "living income" in the form of a pension or otherwise is relative to your situation in life. For example a 22 year old without a partner, kids, a mortgage or loans could probably live quite comfortably on €20-€25k a year. Extremely comfortably on say €35k a year.

A 45 year old, with a partner, two kids aged 8 & 10, a mortgage of say €200k would probably struggle to get by on €35k a year, but be very comfortable on €60k a year.

A 40 year old, with an ex-wife, a new wife, 3 kids between 7-15 and two mortgages totalling €600k would struggle to get by on €60k a year, but would be very comfortable on €120k a year.

If people are able and willing to work and have enough about them to get a position then that's exactly what should happen. Everybody will have different requirements, needs and wants and it's up to them to go out and get them as best they can.

repsol

repsol wrote: »

A Garda will not get a full pension with 25 years service and cannot retire at 45 unless he is invalided so your example is irrelevant.I am a PS worker and my duty is to provide for my family.If I want to work when I retire in order to give them a better life/education that is my right and my business."Lifelines" for those on the dole are not my concern.Maybe you would like me to tell my daughter that she cannot go to university because I donated my job to another family?As a parent my job is to do my very best for MY family and give them the best life and education I can.Then hopefully that education will mean they can get a good job on merit rather than needing someone else to donate it to them.You say "greedy and selfish",I say responsible and hard working.

You are missing my point completely. If you're not on the dole, you wouldn't understand the frustration and impotence I feel when I'm unable to get a job - any job to help support my family. I just want a fair crack of the whip. I too, want to be responsible and hard working and pay my way, but often find I cannot, because someone is double jobbing and depriving me of the chance. So, if you are working 2 jobs in order to send your child to College, then YES, you are being greedy and selfish in depriving me and others in my situation of the chance of feeding, clothing and educating OUR children.

Luca Brasi

nice_guy80 wrote: »

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

Of course your mother knows everyone elses business.
If you have applied for some of these jobs and havent got them maybe you would be better off looking at your own shortcomings than begrudging some one elses lifestyle.

repsol

Deleted User wrote: »

You are missing my point completely. If you're not on the dole, you wouldn't understand the frustration and impotence I feel when I'm unable to get a job - any job to help support my family. I just want a fair crack of the whip. I too, want to be responsible and hard working and pay my way, but often find I cannot, because someone is double jobbing and depriving me of the chance. So, if you are working 2 jobs in order to send your child to College, then YES, you are being greedy and selfish in depriving me and others in my situation of the chance of feeding, clothing and educating OUR children.

My point is,you are getting "a fair crack of the whip". It is admirable that you want to find work but if you and someone else apply for a job and they get it,its because you were not the best applicant.The OP never said anything about "working 2 jobs" nor did I.We are talking about retired people working 1 job.To go by your rules we would have to give jobs to unsuitable people based on financial status as opposed to suitability.Why stop at pensions? Lets exclude anyone with a second property,an inheritance, a spouse who works,or anyone with savings from applying for a job.Its a nonsense argument. I think those who apply for a lot of jobs unsuccessfully should be looking at improving their CV,interview skills and qualifications rather than blaming the successful applicant for their shortcomings.I have been on the dole for a time in the early 90's.I know what its like.

Procrastastudy

repsol wrote: »

My point is,you are getting "a fair crack of the whip". It is admirable that you want to find work but if you and someone else apply for a job and they get it,its because you were not the best applicant.The OP never said anything about "working 2 jobs" nor did I.We are talking about retired people working 1 job.To go by your rules we would have to give jobs to unsuitable people based on financial status as opposed to suitability.Why stop at pensions? Lets exclude anyone with a second property,an inheritance, a spouse who works,or anyone with savings from applying for a job.Its a nonsense argument. I think those who apply for a lot of jobs unsuccessfully should be looking at improving their CV,interview skills and qualifications rather than blaming the successful applicant for their shortcomings.I have been on the dole for a time in the early 90's.I know what its like.

These are good points. One thing to bear in mind is we tax high earners such as many of the people above and put that money into benefits for people that can't find work. This country is unbelievably generous in providing education to people out of work. If you can't find a job OP (Plenty of them in Dublin BTW) then why not go back to education and retrain.

mikemac1

A nurse retires

HSE can't hire new staff so they use agency staff

And so the nurse comes back as agency staff.
The agency and bosses love them as they can do the job right away

Meanwhile young staff can't get any hours at all and face emigration

What was the point in training new staff if they can't get a chance?

Joe Duffy show covered this in a maternity hospital in Limerick last year. Might have been Cork but I'm fairly sure it was Limerick

Cushie Butterfield

Deleted User wrote: »

You are missing my point completely. If you're not on the dole, you wouldn't understand the frustration and impotence I feel when I'm unable to get a job - any job to help support my family. I just want a fair crack of the whip. I too, want to be responsible and hard working and pay my way, but often find I cannot, because someone is double jobbing and depriving me of the chance. So, if you are working 2 jobs in order to send your child to College, then YES, you are being greedy and selfish in depriving me and others in my situation of the chance of feeding, clothing and educating OUR children.

It isn't all that long ago that women had to give up work when they married. When people start calling for limitations as regards who & who can't be hired by employers they are in effect calling for a reversal of all the strides that have been made as regards employment equality over the years.

Where should the line be drawn? Should potential employees be means tested before being offered a job? What about negative equity or personal debt - should this be taken into account? Should somebody whose parents are considered to be well off be told that they have to wait until all the less well off people are employed? After all they don't need the job, or do they? Should people be fired as soon as they have their mortgage fully paid?

Should all women be forbidden to have children until 2073, so as in time there will be no-one looking for jobs? Is it fair to bring a child into the world in the knowledge that they will find it hard to find employment? After all they don't need children if there will be no jobs for them, or do they?

When you start advocating discrimination you are approaching a very slippery slope.

Glinda

The best person for the job should get the job. Always. End of.

Companies should be free to seek the best and most suitable candidate: they are not there to provide a social service, they are a business!

Mr. teddywinkles

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.

Why retire at all then?

Mr. teddywinkles

Glinda wrote: »

The best person for the job should get the job. Always. End of.

Companies should be free to seek the best and most suitable candidate: they are not there to provide a social service, they are a business!

This is the same policy with a lot of companies, then they wonder why there is a shortage of suitable candidates for certain roles when the experience is not being given to quailified people.