Solas Centre

jayboi

I have heard a number of complaints particularly lately about how much the retired guard in charge gets paid for his position in the charity. Can anyone shine any light on this?
I don't want to rush to an opinion on the situation without knowing the facts.
Despite this the fact is in a time when a large number of good experienced people are finding it hard to find work that this position was given to someone who got at considerable 6 figure sum on retirement as well as very generous pension defies logic. Anyway I digress

wellboytoo

I was wondering when that would kick off?

TheVandal

I'm sure that the pay reflects the work involved and that he was picked because of his experience or credentials?

Max Powers

jayboi wrote: »

I have heard a number of complaints particularly lately about how much the retired guard in charge gets paid for his position in the charity. Can anyone shine any light on this?
I don't want to rush to an opinion on the situation without knowing the facts.
Despite this the fact is in a time when a large number of good experienced people are finding it hard to find work that this position was given to someone who got at considerable 6 figure sum on retirement as well as very generous pension defies logic. Anyway I digress

i would rather see a non-retired unemployed person get the job but where are you getting this info on the persons pension and 6 figure sum. This smacks of pub talk giving out, next thing he will be the chap who won the lotto.

Potential-Monke

Does retiring from a job now preclude someone from getting another one? Maybe he was best suited for the position, or had done a great deal of work with the Solas Center over the years and his experience is of more merit than someone with the qualifications (which he probably has also). Being a retired Garda (if true) would also mean he would have a lot of contacts and relationships with people who can help the organisation.

Unless someone can give a breakdown of who this person is, his experience and his qualifications, then i don't believe anyone has the right to question his position. As Max says, it sounds like someone just needed something to give out about.

7upfree

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Does retiring from a job now preclude someone from getting another one?

A job like this? Most certainly. Especially given the pension he/she would be on. Is it too much to ask that people who have time to give would occupy these positions on a voluntary, or nominally-paid, basis?

The payments to Irish Charity CEOs are staggering:

This is from 2011:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/charity-bosses-salaries-exceed-100k-168734.html

But frankly it is outrageous. Someone on €150k a year requires €3k a WEEK to be fundraised for ONE WAGE.. It is absolutely disgusting. Another CEO whose name escapes me was on over €240k at one point.

Wake up people.

7upfree

Max Powers wrote: »

i would rather see a non-retired unemployed person get the job but where are you getting this info on the persons pension and 6 figure sum. This smacks of pub talk giving out, next thing he will be the chap who won the lotto.

This is doing the rounds alright. Maybe the Solas people could confirm or deny it? But is it any different to people on polling booths when elections are on?

These jobs should be given to unemployed people. Especially under the current climate. But that would be too much to ask in Ireland.

Sully

Nobody knows exactly what any individuals personal financial circumstances are. No doubt his pension and pay entitlements are inline with his work past and present. I would prefer a person be given the position based on his ability to do the job and meeting the various criteria set out. Plenty of people retire but want to keep working, even with a pension, and I have no problem with that at all. Its their personal choice.

As for polling station jobs - if you have it already, you get to keep it. There are circumstances where positions are available and unemployed people can apply. So this whole unemployed people don't get the job, typical Ireland etc. is just horse****e pub talk.

7upfree

Sully wrote: »

Nobody knows exactly what any individuals personal financial circumstances are. No doubt his pension and pay entitlements are inline with his work past and present. I would prefer a person be given the position based on his ability to do the job and meeting the various criteria set out. Plenty of people retire but want to keep working, even with a pension, and I have no problem with that at all. Its their personal choice.

As for polling station jobs - if you have it already, you get to keep it. There are circumstances where positions are available and unemployed people can apply. So this whole unemployed people don't get the job, typical Ireland etc. is just horse****e pub talk.

That last sentence there is horse shyte of the highest order my friend. It epitomises all that is wrong with this country.

A blind acceptance that, somehow, we can't do anything about it. Unemployed people shouldn't "have to apply". Drawing a line through people's names and addresses is within the remit of 99% of people.

It is a position where those already in employment (in some cases days are taken off work to perform this "task") or in receipt of pensions, i.e. enjoy a good standard of living, should stand aside and allow those who need it (young, struggling families) to benefit from what is a healthy payment for one day's work.

And as regards "pub talk", nothing could be further from the truth in relation to the truly sickeningly exorbitant salaries enjoyed by some charity CEOs.

It is, unfortunately, "typically Ireland". A gravy train. On the backs of the kind people who donate.

Darkest Horse

7upfree wrote: »

That last sentence there is horse shyte of the highest order my friend. It epitomises all that is wrong with this country.

A blind acceptance that, somehow, we can't do anything about it. Unemployed people shouldn't "have to apply". Drawing a line through people's names and addresses is within the remit of 99% of people.

It is a position where those already in employment (in some cases days are taken off work to perform this "task") or in receipt of pensions, i.e. enjoy a good standard of living, should stand aside and allow those who need it (young, struggling families) to benefit from what is a healthy payment for one day's work.

And as regards "pub talk", nothing could be further from the truth in relation to the truly sickeningly exorbitant salaries enjoyed by some charity CEOs.

It is, unfortunately, "typically Ireland". A gravy train. On the backs of the kind people who donate.

They are CEOs. The pay is unlikely to be out of line with CEOs in the wider corporate world. You think because they run charities that they should be paid less for a comparatively similar body of work? The free market decides these salaries and any interference with that would see an equivalent fall in the quality of individual willing to do the work. We don't live in the Communist era Soviet Union, economic forces are allowed to take effect and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

7upfree

Darkest Horse wrote: »

They are CEOs. The pay is unlikely to be out of line with CEOs in the wider corporate world. You think because they run charities that they should be paid less for a comparatively similar body of work? The free market decides these salaries and any interference with that would see an equivalent fall in the quality of individual willing to do the work. We don't live in the Communist era Soviet Union, economic forces are allowed to take effect and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

I'm sure the individuals being served by the charities,
at the behest of donors like myself are more than aware
Of "economic forces".

The salaries are nothing short of outrageous.

Full stop.

Darkest Horse

7upfree wrote: »

I'm sure the individuals being served by the charities,
at the behest of donors like myself are more than aware
Of "economic forces".

The salaries are nothing short of outrageous.

Full stop.

Well then so are those of any large corporate entity. We can't both be right.

7upfree

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Well then so are those of any large corporate entity. We can't both be right.

Large corporate entities reward their CEOs for performance and profit.

Nothing could be further from a charity. As I already said, a sick joke.

Darkest Horse

7upfree wrote: »

Large corporate entities reward their CEOs for performance and profit.

Nothing could be further from a charity. As I already said, a sick joke.

Charities don't employ performance metrics? You mean to say that large salaries are rewarded based on subjective estimates of performance?

7upfree

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Charities don't employ performance metrics? You mean to say that large salaries are rewarded based on subjective estimates of performance?

Many of these charities have a guarantees income
which they have enjoyed for years. That salary
Does not need to be paid to any of those CEOs.

The position is merely a figurehead in most cases.
And should be remunerated accordingly.

Darkest Horse

7upfree wrote: »

That salary
Does not need to be paid to any of those CEOs.

Really? That's a fairly unequivocal opinion.

7upfree

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Really? That's a fairly unequivocal opinion.

True. So we'll have to agree to differ it seems.

kayaksurfbum

jayboi wrote: »

I have heard a number of complaints particularly lately about how much the retired guard in charge gets paid for his position in the charity. Can anyone shine any light on this?
I don't want to rush to an opinion on the situation without knowing the facts.
Despite this the fact is in a time when a large number of good experienced people are finding it hard to find work that this position was given to someone who got at considerable 6 figure sum on retirement as well as very generous pension defies logic. Anyway I digress

I was disgusted when I first heard about this a few months ago, However, I asked someone involved in the center and they told me the amount of hours and effort that he puts in is massive. He does a huge amount of work for the solas and I think that only someone with his experience could do the job.
Totally justified I think.

rhapsodyinblue

I don't think anyone, who is receiving a good pension, should be able to take up a paid job. After all, a pension is supposed to be for when one is no longer working! If someone retired takes up a job, then the pension should be suspended until such time when the job contract terminates. Anything else is nothing short of greed, and more greed.

hardybuck

rhapsodyinblue wrote: »

I don't think anyone, who is receiving a good pension, should be able to take up a paid job. After all, a pension is supposed to be for when one is no longer working! If someone retired takes up a job, then the pension should be suspended until such time when the job contract terminates. Anything else is nothing short of greed, and more greed.

But sure loads of people would retire early, and not be in a position to claim their pension until a number of years later. The earlier you take your pension, the less it's worth to you.

A pension is normally part of a fund which someone contributed to throughout their career, along with their employer. It's normally money which people could have spent, but decided to put it away for a rainy day.

You could look at it another way, how many people throw away cash, don't plan for the future, and expect to get by on handouts when they retire? Is that not greed?

Max Powers

rhapsodyinblue wrote: »

I don't think anyone, who is receiving a good pension, should be able to take up a paid job. After all, a pension is supposed to be for when one is no longer working! If someone retired takes up a job, then the pension should be suspended until such time when the job contract terminates. Anything else is nothing short of greed, and more greed.

for argument sake,are you saying if you were retired but still wanted to work and were offered a job for yourself, you wouldnt take it?

unless, there is some sort of dodgy financial accounting, reporting, nepotisim, payment, top ups or whatever, this is most likely none of our business. If this was tax payers money like retired teachers being brought in when there thousands of unemployed teachers then there may be an issue.

hardybuck

Max Powers wrote: »

If this was tax payers money like retired teachers being brought in when there thousands of unemployed teachers then there may be an issue.

.

Which is going on, is clearly wrong, and another issue.

I think there is a bit of sour grapes going on in this case personally. I've heard nothing but good words spoken about this chap myself. Good luck to him.

Max Powers

hardybuck wrote: »

.



I think there is a bit of sour grapes going on in this case personally. I've heard nothing but good words spoken about this chap myself. Good luck to him.

what little knowledge I (and most on here probably) have, i feel exact same.

7upfree

hardybuck wrote: »

But sure loads of people would retire early, and not be in a position to claim their pension until a number of years later. The earlier you take your pension, the less it's worth to you.

A pension is normally part of a fund which someone contributed to throughout their career, along with their employer. It's normally money which people could have spent, but decided to put it away for a rainy day.

You could look at it another way, how many people throw away cash, don't plan for the future, and expect to get by on handouts when they retire? Is that not greed?

I believe rhapsody is talking about those who retire on early (very large) pensions.

7upfree

hardybuck wrote: »

.

Which is going on, is clearly wrong, and another issue.

I think there is a bit of sour grapes going on in this case personally. I've heard nothing but good words spoken about this chap myself. Good luck to him.

Good luck to him? Could the job not have been given to someone who was equally skilled - but unemployed?

hardybuck

7upfree wrote: »

Good luck to him? Could the job not have been given to someone who was equally skilled - but unemployed?

That would be discriminatory and leave them open to legal challenge.

BadCharlie

People are entitled to work no matter if retired, unemployed, disabiled, colour, religion, or what ever your case might be. Saying someone should not get a Job beacuse they retired from another job is discrimination. If the person indeed has a big pension & working they will be still paying taxes and so contribiting.

Find it very Irish that people are hear complaining about someone working!!!!

Did anyone ever think the person who retired & now working does not have any money ? so needs to keep working to pay the bills ? Maybe they have lots of money but likes the fancy life style ? Maybe divorced ? Maybe kids in college ? Maybe they dont like seening people unemployed getting work ?

7upfree

BadCharlie wrote: »

People are entitled to work no matter if retired, unemployed, disabiled, colour, religion, or what ever your case might be. Saying someone should not get a Job beacuse they retired from another job is discrimination. If the person indeed has a big pension & working they will be still paying taxes and so contribiting.

Find it very Irish that people are hear complaining about someone working!!!!

Did anyone ever think the person who retired & now working does not have any money ? so needs to keep working to pay the bills ? Maybe they have lots of money but likes the fancy life style ? Maybe divorced ? Maybe kids in college ? Maybe they dont like seening people unemployed getting work ?

Not complaining of someone working. But, let's say - hypothetically speaking - you've retired early on a very large pension, and are fairly comfortable, then there is a moral duty on you to give those a chance. Who may also have a family and crippling debt. And be thankful for what you have.

The same thing goes on at polling booths every election, with some taking days off work to man them. This should be the preserve of the unemployed.

hardybuck

7upfree wrote: »

Not complaining of someone working. But, let's say - hypothetically speaking - you've retired early on a very large pension, and are fairly comfortable, then there is a moral duty on you to give those a chance. Who may also have a family and crippling debt. And be thankful for what you have.

No. You don't. You've got the duty to pick the best candidate for the role. Doing anything else would leave you open to a legal challenge.

7upfree wrote: »

The same thing goes on at polling booths every election, with some taking days off work to man them. This should be the preserve of the unemployed.

That's a different matter. A lot of employers would be unhappy to hear of their staff taking annual leave for stuff like this. It's effectively double jobbing.

BadCharlie

I would feel very strong on a few matters. Everyone should work if able, everyone should be giving a chance to work "for example send in your application for what ever job it be polling/security guard or any other job/employment". What very much ticks me off is people think they are "entitled". While another section of people should not be "entitled" to go for that job/payment/pension. I ask this very famous line "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country"

I my self started work on a building site at an age between 9 to 11 "between 26 or 28 years ago" health and safety was not an issue back then. At the age of 17 i was the only guy in school that had his own car and drove it to school each day. My point is that i was not entitled to have a car and pay the £1,600 pounds insurance back then, i went out at a very young age & earned it.

I understand we have crazy high unemployment "did that" & people are doing & trying everything to get back to work "well done to all who are". But retired or not, big pension or not, working or not... everyone should be entitled to go for said Job & not just one section of our society.

7upfree

hardybuck wrote: »

No. You don't. You've got the duty to pick the best candidate for the role. Doing anything else would leave you open to a legal challenge.

Well then, maybe the best route is to stop people retiring before 65. That would level the playing field. And should be done IMHO. Especially in the Public sector.

hardybuck wrote: »

That's a different matter. A lot of employers would be unhappy to hear of their staff taking annual leave for stuff like this. It's effectively double jobbing.

I don't think there's anything they can do about it.