HSE Paid Career Breaks

Jasper79

Hi,

So my sister works in the HSE and they'e been offered a 3 year Paid career break.

Apparently they've to apply by end of May, will be approved by Mid June and should commence by 1st July.

While on the career break staff will be paid 1/3 of salary capped at 12k per annum.

A Colleagues wife is a nurse in the hse and she will taking it as after they've calculated creche fees/tax credits etc as a couple they will only be down 200euro per month.

My Thoughts though is, is this just a scheme by the government to claim that they've reduced the pay bill by so much? while just pushing out the salary payments by the 3 years? I don't see why else would offer this, as I don't believe they will replace the staff that take the break, hence just increasing backlogs and poorer service provided.

Also not sure I've seen this reported in the media either ?

Any thoughts to the benefits for this scheme ?

Riskymove

Jasper79 wrote: »

Also not sure I've seen this reported in the media either ?

Any thoughts to the benefits for this scheme ?

It was reported in the media.

The Govt did the same in the Civil Service as one of their first measures and it is about temporarily reducing the wage bill and in that sense it works

The people who went on the 3 year breaks have recently begun to return.

bbam

Kicking the financial can down the road is a well recognised, widely practiced procedure among governments round the world.
Personally I think countries couldn't get bye without doing it. Put off financial responsibilities until a combination of better times and relative values make repayment easier.

Aren't Italy the kings of rolling over debt, they manage it well and it has served them well.

Jasper79

Yeah, I guess I thought we were done with "kicking the can down the road " etc. but then there doesn't appear to be any real appetite to cutting the over expense and badly run areas of the civil service.

Instead pay staff a fraction of salary for no productivity and claim they've cut the wage bill down the line..

And wonder why people have distaste for politics/politicians

Riskymove

Jasper79 wrote: »

Instead pay staff a fraction of salary for no productivity and claim they've cut the wage bill down the line..

well thats always likely to happen when you are trying to meet a target by a deadline

its not a long term view at all

gazzer

Well if they let the staff go they would have to pay a lot more in redundancy payments. This way the staff who go on career breaks end up getting the same amount of money as they would (more or less) on the dole.

It also means (if the practice in the Civil Service is anything to go by) that when their career break is up it can take up to a year for them to be placed in an area where there is a shortage of staff (they wont just be put back in the place they worked before their career break).

During this year where a suitable place is been looked for the staff member wont be getting any money at all. Now it could be the case that they will be reinstated straight away or within a few months of the career break ending but it could take up to a year.

Sleepy

Riskymove wrote: »

well thats always likely to happen when you are trying to meet a target by a deadline and are hamstrung by unions you've allowed grow too powerful

FYP

Mr. teddywinkles

Jasper79 wrote: »

Hi,

So my sister works in the HSE and they'e been offered a 3 year Paid career break.

Apparently they've to apply by end of May, will be approved by Mid June and should commence by 1st July.

While on the career break staff will be paid 1/3 of salary capped at 12k per annum.

A Colleagues wife is a nurse in the hse and she will taking it as after they've calculated creche fees/tax credits etc as a couple they will only be down 200euro per month.

My Thoughts though is, is this just a scheme by the government to claim that they've reduced the pay bill by so much? while just pushing out the salary payments by the 3 years? I don't see why else would offer this, as I don't believe they will replace the staff that take the break, hence just increasing backlogs and poorer service provided.

Also not sure I've seen this reported in the media either ?

Any thoughts to the benefits for this scheme ?

So let me get this right were paying someone to do nothing for 3 years.
Please correct me if im wrong?

kippy

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So let me get this right were paying someone to do nothing for 3 years.
Please correct me if im wrong?

That's generally the gist of it alright.

skafish

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So let me get this right were paying someone to do nothing for 3 years.
Please correct me if im wrong?

No you are right. And, strange as it seems, it is actually a good idea that makes economic sence.

If a person is made redundant, they are entitled to redundancy payments. If the employer can't pay, then the government picks up the bill. In this case, there is no difference. The point is, the taxpayer must pick up the tab for 2 weeks pay per year of employment.
The the person is entitled to jobseekers benifit and jobseekers allowance. They may also be entitled to claim rent allowance, fuel allowance and so on, with no guarantee as to how long these will be claimed. Total cost to the tax payer? your guess is as good as mine, but if you take the JSA on its own, at €188 per week, it adds up to €9809 per year.

Under this scheme, a person gives up their job for 3 years, with the guarantee that at the end of that time, they will be reemployed. The employeer saves the cost of their salary , less €12000.

In 3 years, hopefully the economic situation will have improved. At which stage, the HSE re instates their employee, without the need to engage in an expensive recruitment campaign; and regain an employee who knows how things work, without the need to involve them in time costly induction training.

Seems like a good deal to me

woodoo

skafish wrote: »

No you are right. And, strange as it seems, it is actually a good idea that makes economic sence.

If a person is made redundant, they are entitled to redundancy payments. If the employer can't pay, then the government picks up the bill. In this case, there is no difference. The point is, the taxpayer must pick up the tab for 2 weeks pay per year of employment.
The the person is entitled to jobseekers benifit and jobseekers allowance. They may also be entitled to claim rent allowance, fuel allowance and so on, with no guarantee as to how long these will be claimed. Total cost to the tax payer? your guess is as good as mine, but if you take the JSA on its own, at €188 per week, it adds up to €9809 per year.

Under this scheme, a person gives up their job for 3 years, with the guarantee that at the end of that time, they will be reemployed. The employeer saves the cost of their salary , less €12000.

In 3 years, hopefully the economic situation will have improved. At which stage, the HSE re instates their employee, without the need to engage in an expensive recruitment campaign; and regain an employee who knows how things work, without the need to involve them in time costly induction training.

Seems like a good deal to me

And if they are just laid off they can claim the dole anyway costing the state perhaps more and they would have to pay them redundancy.

Mr. teddywinkles

But you can still find work else where for the 3 years?

Odysseus

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

But you can still find work else where for the 3 years?

Yes, but you cannot work for the State or any of its various agencies during the 3 years.

maryishere

could people in the private sector get paid 36k by the taxpayer to do nothing for 3 years too?

Would save a lot of redundancy / dole. Would be great if there was parity of treatment / entitlements.

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

could people in the private sector get paid 36k by the taxpayer to do nothing for 3 years too?

Would save a lot of redundancy / dole. Would be great if there was parity of treatment / entitlements.

You might want to reconsidee that question......

maryishere

What got me thinking was when my sister in law got off for 3 years , and got €12,000 a year for her time off. Before she took the time off for 3 years, she was considering giving up work to look after her kids and have a better lifestyle. Then she was offered 12k a year not to work, and the guarantee of work at the end of the 3 years. Money from heaven she called it.
Her husband and any of the other siblings cannot get this perk - they all work in the private sector / or have had to emigrate.

Gumbo

maryishere wrote: »

Her husband and any of the other siblings cannot get this perk - they all work in the private sector / or have had to emigrate.

They should of got a job with PTSB, they offered it too

Bits_n_Bobs

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So let me get this right were paying someone to do nothing for 3 years.
Please correct me if im wrong?

You're wrong. We're paying someone to do nothing for 3 years AND providing them with a guaranteed job at the end of it.

Photoshop

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

You're wrong. We're paying someone to do nothing for 3 years AND providing them with a guaranteed job at the end of it.

Funny isn't it.

I thought the HSE were suppose to be understaffed and overworked :rolleyes:

What a joke.

maryishere

And I thought the employer was short of money / bust / having to borrow from the lender of last resort.

Being able to get 12,000 a year for not working for 3 years for a "career break" is a great liitle perk. No private sector employee or person in business can currently get a deal like that.

Larianne

skafish wrote: »

Seems like a good deal to me

Not for patients. The workload will still be there, but the staff won't. Leaving the remaining staff to somehow stretch even further.

Photoshop wrote: »

Funny isn't it.

I thought the HSE were suppose to be understaffed and overworked :rolleyes:

What a joke.

My thinking is that the HSE are hoping that older staff on different pay plans will take up the offer and after the 3 years don't return to the post.

They need to replace the staff leaving though. It's utterly insane not to.

maryishere

...so the taxpayer pays for someone not to work as well as getting a replacement and paying them to work. We cannot afford that. No wonder the country is bust. The people taking the 3 years for 36k were already considering retiring to look after kids etc and now they are paid 36 k and given their dream job back after 3 years.

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

...so the taxpayer pays for someone not to work as well as getting a replacement and paying them to work. We cannot afford that. No wonder the country is bust. The people taking the 3 years for 36k were already considering retiring to look after kids etc and now they are paid 36 k and given their dream job back after 3 years.

There is no guarentee of how dreamy your job will be on your return.....

RGS

maryishere wrote: »

...so the taxpayer pays for someone not to work as well as getting a replacement and paying them to work. We cannot afford that. No wonder the country is bust. The people taking the 3 years for 36k were already considering retiring to look after kids etc and now they are paid 36 k and given their dream job back after 3 years.

Those who take the career wont be replaced thats where the saving will be made.
It will also reduce the pension payable as they will be short 3 years of reckonable service.

maryishere

RGS wrote: »

Those who take the career wont be replaced thats where the saving will be made.

paying someone 36k who was going to retire anyway ( for a better lifestyle, to be with kids etc ) is not a saving. Do you not agree that being able to get 12,000 a year for not working for 3 years for a "career break" is a great liitle perk ? And that no private sector employee or person in business can currently get a deal like that ?

skafish

maryishere wrote: »

paying someone 36k who was going to retire anyway ( for a better lifestyle, to be with kids etc ) is not a saving. Do you not agree that being able to get 12,000 a year for not working for 3 years for a "career break" is a great liitle perk ? And that no private sector employee or person in business can currently get a deal like that ?

It seems that you are confusing your sister with the rest of the HSE staff. Boards.ie is full of posts about reducing the number of staff in the PS. Here is an example of one section actively doing something to reduce numbers, at a rate that costs the government less than compulsory redundancy, and all you can do is pick holes.

Its very simple; if the HSE decided to sack a number of staff (if compulsory redundancy were allowed), the people thus fired would be entitled to severance pay, the dole and various other social welfare payments. Depending on their circumstances, this will probably amount to a hell of a lot more than €36 000 over three years.
In addition, the said HSE get to reemploy the fully trained staff again in three years time, when, hopefully, things will be better.
When these staff are reinstated, and, under the deal, there is no guarantee they will get their old job back, just a job at the same grade, they can be re deployed to where they are most needed. Without three years increments and pension benifits.

Some people can never be happy

skafish

Larianne wrote: »

Not for patients. The workload will still be there, but the staff won't. Leaving the remaining staff to somehow stretch even further.



My thinking is that the HSE are hoping that older staff on different pay plans will take up the offer and after the 3 years don't return to the post.

They need to replace the staff leaving though. It's utterly insane not to.

AFAIK the proposals state that the HSE will have the final say as to whether any application is successful or not. This being the case, it is unlikely front line staff such as nurses will be allowed to take up the offer. It seems to be aimed more at admin staff who can be redeployed elsewhere at the end of their 3 years

maryishere

you have not answered the 2 simple questions
(a) Do you not agree that being able to get 12,000 a year for not working for 3 years for a "career break" is a great liitle perk ?
(b) And that no private sector employee or person in business can currently get a deal like that ?

if its such a great idea, why do nobody else in Ireland or around the world tell their employees to "not come in for 3 years" and you can have 36,000 and a guarantee of the permanent pensionable job back?

skafish

maryishere wrote: »

you have not answered the 2 simple questions
(a) Do you not agree that being able to get 12,000 a year for not working for 3 years for a "career break" is a great liitle perk ?
(b) And that no private sector employee or person in business can currently get a deal like that ?

if its such a great idea, why do nobody else in Ireland or around the world tell their employees to "not come in for 3 years" and you can have 36,000 and a guarantee of the permanent pensionable job back?

Simple to grasp simple economics, I'll try to explain.

Consider the 3 year leave as being the equivalent of being laid off in the private sector. Such a person is entitled to various payments, called social welfare. This comes from the government, not the former, and possibly future employer.

In the case of the HSE, the government is both current and future employer, as well as the source of social welfare payments.

However, on a practical level, the proposed payment of €12 000 per year is, in most cases, a lot less than the person would be entitled to is simply made redundant.

To answer your questions:
(a) yes it is a good perk, both for the employer (ie the government, or more properly, the taxpayer) and the employee, those who are lucky enough to be able to apply and the few who will have their applications successfully processed.

(b) Most people in private industry can get it. A lot of the people currently looking for work are technically laid off.

aliveandkicking

maryishere wrote: »

you have not answered the 2 simple questions
(a) Do you not agree that being able to get 12,000 a year for not working for 3 years for a "career break" is a great liitle perk ?

People on the dole get €9776 per year for not working as well as many other social welfare entitlements like rent supplement etc.

If the people who are availing of the paid career break were made redundant in the morning instead the state would have to fork out a considerable lump in statutory redundancy and then those made redundant would be entitled to claim the €9776 a year in dole anyway. So the paid career break is actually financially better for the state than making them redundant.

maryishere wrote: »

(b) And that no private sector employee or person in business can currently get a deal like that ?

if its such a great idea, why do nobody else in Ireland or around the world tell their employees to "not come in for 3 years" and you can have 36,000 and a guarantee of the permanent pensionable job back?

Already pointed out in the thread that private sector PTSB also operated this scheme.

The finances of this scheme have been explained in detail in earlier posts. It is quite clearly more beneficial to the exchequer than making staff redundant. If you are against this it can only be on grounds of ideology or plain and simple begrudgery.

washman3

skafish wrote: »

No you are right. And, strange as it seems, it is actually a good idea that makes economic sence.

If a person is made redundant, they are entitled to redundancy payments. If the employer can't pay, then the government picks up the bill. In this case, there is no difference. The point is, the taxpayer must pick up the tab for 2 weeks pay per year of employment.
The the person is entitled to jobseekers benifit and jobseekers allowance. They may also be entitled to claim rent allowance, fuel allowance and so on, with no guarantee as to how long these will be claimed. Total cost to the tax payer? your guess is as good as mine, but if you take the JSA on its own, at €188 per week, it adds up to €9809 per year.

Under this scheme, a person gives up their job for 3 years, with the guarantee that at the end of that time, they will be reemployed. The employeer saves the cost of their salary , less €12000.

In 3 years, hopefully the economic situation will have improved. At which stage, the HSE re instates their employee, without the need to engage in an expensive recruitment campaign; and regain an employee who knows how things work, without the need to involve them in time costly induction training.

Seems like a good deal to me

Well i have definately heard it all now..
only two words to describe this, BANANA REPUBLIC :mad:

nice_guy80

washman3 wrote: »

Well i have definately heard it all now..
only two words to describe this, BANANA REPUBLIC :mad:

shows your understanding of budgets and economics so

ted1

To me this makes perfect sense, cheaper than making redundancies, in three years we will see a lot of retirements , these won 't be replaced with new staff as the old staff will rejoin the work force, the staff will already be trained and experienced and hence save money having new staff not being productive for the first few months.

As mentioned before PTSB offered this scheme.

To the poster whinging about their sister going to leave and now getting paid for a break, she's the exception.
In 2000 I was working for Intel and was just about to hand in my notice so I could go back to college, they offered voluntary redundancies the day before I handed on my notice and got it. These things happen in life, but as mentioned there the exception not the rule

creedp

ted1 wrote: »

In 2000 I was working for Intel and was just about to hand in my notice so I could go back to college, they offered voluntary redundancies the day before I handed on my notice and got it. These things happen in life, but as mentioned there the exception not the rule

At the expense of getting another hammering for being anecdotal again but the same happened to my sister-in-law who worked for a bank. She had young child and went back to work after maternity leave and couldn't settle back so had been discussing giving up the job when she was offerred voluntary redundancy - a tasty €90k plus €200pw UB for a year. Not too shabby. She now enjoys life, has 2 kids and gets to look after them without having to cough up over €1,000 a month for childcare. She was telling me that in her area it was women with kids who predominantly took the package with a couple of long serving perople getting in excess of €120k.

I suppose the point is that voluntary redundancy can be beneficial for some people, depending on their circumstance. Presumably also it is beneficial for the organisation or else why wouldthey pay over such large sums of money to achieve the redundancies. Ditto with this proposal.

maryishere

washman3 wrote: »

Well i have definately heard it all now..
only two words to describe this, BANANA REPUBLIC :mad:

+1. Bob Geldof was right. Another nice little perk paid for by the taxpayer, who can never availe of such a scheme themselves.

ted1 wrote: »

As mentioned before PTSB offered this scheme.

The Irish banks made frighteningly bad decisions during the celtic tiger years and the PTSB ended up bust / bailed out by the taxpayer. They no longer offer this scheme as they found it did not work. If the PTSB once stuck their hand in the fire, do you think everyone should stick their hand in the fire too? No other business or government in the world offers this scheme ( €36,000 to someone for not working for 3 years, and guarantee of a job at the end of it ). If they did, they would end up bust - just like our government who is offering the scheme is.

There are plenty of people in this country who would work for 12 grand a year, never mind not work for 12 grand a year. Still, it shows one thing : some public servants can survive on 12 grand a year. They prove it themselves. Well done.

creedp

[QUOTE=maryishere;84731925There are plenty of people in this country who would work for 12 grand a year, never mind not work for 12 grand a year. Still, it shows one thing : some public servants can survive on 12 grand a year. They prove it themselves. Well done.[/QUOTE]


What are you on about? Why would plenty of people work for €12k a year when they could get more on the dole.

As for the second statement for crying out loud - who says they are surviving on €12k per year? Its all about individual circumstances - see earlier posts about someone wanting to go back to college or a mother/father with young children who simply can't afford the childcare or can't manage the school schedule and work at same time.

Don't worry about that though its much more rewarding to continue to slag off people without any basis.

ted1

maryishere wrote: »

No other business or government in the world offers this scheme ( €36,000 to someone for not working for 3 years, and guarantee of a job at the end of it ). If they did, they would end up bust - just like our government who is offering the scheme is.

There are plenty of people in this country who would work for 12 grand a year, never mind not work for 12 grand a year. Still, it shows one thing : some public servants can survive on 12 grand a year. They prove it themselves. Well done.

the dole is 188 per week plus extra for dependants .188*52 =€9776 which isn't to shy of 12k. especially when you bring in dependandts.


it probably works out as finanacillly neutral. plus you have the added benefits of having a ready workforce to replace those who leave natrually over the next 3 years.

maryishere

creedp wrote: »

What are you on about? Why would plenty of people work for €12k a year when they could get more on the dole.

There are plenty of people who would work for 12,000 a year because they get little or nothing on the dole - there are hundreds of thousands of self employed people who, despite paying tax all their lives, are not entitled to the dole if their business dries up for whatever reason. Some of them would take 12,000 a year for working, never mind 12,000 a year for not working with a guaranteed job and pension after 3 years!

If the public service was not overstaffed they would not be offering people these deals. If some public servants could not survive on 12k a year they would not be accepting these deals. Nobody is forcing any public servant to accept 12k a year.

creedp

maryishere wrote: »

Nobody is forcing any public servant to accept 12k a year.

Correct. So basically is it mutually beneficial to both sides. Just because an individual accepts this deal doesn't mean they have to survive on €12k a year. Maybe their other half is a well paid executive in a large private company or a large farmer or an owner of profitable business or a well paid public servant or the person is independently wealthy - maybe won the lotto - or any number of other reasons.

maryishere

creedp wrote: »

Correct. So basically is it mutually beneficial to both sides.

Who said it was "mutually beneficial to both sides"? If it was beneficial to an employer to give employees 36,000 for not working for three years ( and guarantee them a permanent pensionable job at the the end of 3 years ) , do you not think other governments or businesses would be doing it? But the taxpayer can afford to stump up for it here, because ah shure we're different?

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

Who said it was "mutually beneficial to both sides"? It it was beneficial to an employer to give employees 36,000 for not working for three years ( and guarantee them a permanent pensionable job at the the end of 3 years ) , do you not think other governments or businesses would be doing it? But the taxpayer can afford to stump up for it here, because ah shure we're different?

But they are different (from a private sector employee/employer relationship), that surely is the point..............

creedp

maryishere wrote: »

Who said it was "mutually beneficial to both sides"? If it was beneficial to an employer to give employees 36,000 for not working for three years ( and guarantee them a permanent pensionable job at the the end of 3 years ) , do you not think other governments or businesses would be doing it? But the taxpayer can afford to stump up for it here, because ah shure we're different?

OK you don't think so .. that's fine .. we'll leave it at that then.

Riskymove

maryishere wrote: »

do you not think other governments or businesses would be doing it?

did you check to see if other governments or business are doing it?

lollpop

This isn't new, it was offered right through the public sector a few years ago.
In my organisation, the people who were on leave were not allowed to be replaced while they were gone so the local line manager had to agree that they could manage without that person. It wasn't available to everyone, if your manager said no then you couldn't do it. I would have assumed that nurses would not be allowed to do this. The idea is that while some parts of public sector organisations are extremely busy and understaffed, the fact is that other parts of the public sector are not so busy. Instead of taking a coherent, sector wide view of the situation and moving/re-training people accordingly, this was done as a short term "solution" to saving cash.

maryishere

lollpop wrote: »

Instead of taking a coherent, sector wide view of the situation and moving/re-training people accordingly, this was done as a short term "solution" to saving cash.

Except it does not save cash. Take the case of the person who wanted to give up work permanently in order to look after children / lifestyle choice / go to Oz for a few years / whatever ....she can now get €36,000 for 3 years and then go back to work. Thats why other governments and other businesses do not do it. They would be bust if they did. Like our government.

Its is a goodish but not a fantastic perk, it is not going to suit a lot of people, its a form of temporary lay off that all lots of firms have temporary lay offs it just that in the normal situation the person would have to sign on for benefits while they were on the lay off.

I doubt very much if they are going to give it to nurses or front line staff.

nice_guy80

its costs teachers money to take a career break (buying back the year's pension)

happy now?

pawrick

I know a few people who signed up to this in the cs when it was offered about 3/4 years ago. Most used it as a chance to go back to uni full time and gain qualifications or save on childcare costs. A few decided not to return as they set up new businesses or found better jobs, the security of having a job after their break allowed them to try out new career opportunities they would not have risked otherwise. Over all it seems to be win win apart from the few exceptions where people were planning on resigning anyhow but very few people resign from any job unless they have something else lined up or are financially secure.

RGS

As usual logical arguments are ignored by the usual anti PS bias.
As the americans say do the math:

Dole €188 per week---€9776 per year. And on the usual additional extras, medical card, rent supplement and the total payment equals or exceeds the €12K per annum the HSE are offering on their scheme.

Example 10 staff in a section in the HSE each earn €50K per annum, total salary payment €500K. 2 people take the career break reduces the staff costs to 8X€50K=€400K plus 2X€12K=€24K €24K+€400k=€424K saving €76K per annum total saving over 3 years €218K.
Secondly the person on career break loses 3 years service for pension purposes thereby reducing the pension bill in the future.

In the Private sector companies lay off people and allow the Government(taxpayer) pick up the tab(dole)

In this case the employer and the government are one and the same therefore there is a saving to the state coffers.

And this is what or what i thought everyone wanted was a reduction in the PS pay bill.

sharper

RGS wrote: »

Dole €188 per week---€9776 per year. And on the usual additional extras, medical card, rent supplement and the total payment equals or exceeds the €12K per annum the HSE are offering on their scheme.

How do you know the people availing of the career break would be entitled to these?

In the Private sector companies lay off people and allow the Government(taxpayer) pick up the tab(dole)

Employers and employees pay PRSI to fund these costs.

kippy

sharper wrote: »

Employers and employees pay PRSI to fund these costs.

They generally do in the public sector as well.........

There's no point defending this scheme from what I can see, despite it making sense on a lot of levels. There are always those that don't want to see past the fact that this scheme makes sense for the employer and employee in and environment where compulsorary redundancies are not an option (currently) and retirements/early retirements/redeployments cannot pick up the slack for headcount cuts.