They'd rob the eye out of your head

Smondie

Revenue staff aren't just happy robbing half the country blind, some are robbing their employer, acting in inappropriate manner and fraud.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/35-revenue-workers-investigated-for-fraud-misconduct-and-theft-34938523.html



Some resigned before action could be taken but the dpp should be able to take cases against them anyway. Why haven't they?

the evasion_kid

The mafia would love to be able to get away with what revenue do...

Your Face

Don't worry, this thread will stop it.

SEPT 23 1989

their names should be published like everyone else who ends up on the wrong side of them

Smondie

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

their names should be published like everyone else who ends up on the wrong side of them

Yes, they should. Resignation shouldn't be a get out clause. If you can't trust revenue, who can you trust?



Hi your face, I don't think the thread will stop it, but it will highlight it among the ah community.

seamus

Terrible reporting, and you're worse for repeating it OP.

The majority of misconduct cases related to underperformance, breaches of sick leave rules, failing to comply with official procedures, and inappropriate access to data stored by the Revenue Commissioners.

Most of the staff involved in these incidents were dismissed, had their salary reduced or received formal warnings.

However, in other cases staff were sanctioned for other serious issues - including theft, fraud, misuse of the internet, and conflict of interest.

So the majority were just straightforward time wasters.

And a handful - probably one or two were done for minor fraud or theft.

Less than 12 serious disciplinary cases per year out of 6,259 staff isn't a lot.

And people are actually getting fired. Which is some accomplishment in the public sector.

Well done on Revenue for being a shining example of a public department that works.

Smondie

seamus wrote: »

Terrible reporting, and you're worse for repeating it OP.

The majority of misconduct cases related to underperformance, breaches of sick leave rules, failing to comply with official procedures, and inappropriate access to data stored by the Revenue Commissioners.

Most of the staff involved in these incidents were dismissed, had their salary reduced or received formal warnings.

However, in other cases staff were sanctioned for other serious issues - including theft, fraud, misuse of the internet, and conflict of interest.

seamus wrote: »

So the majority were just straightforward time wasters.

And a handful - probably one or two were done for minor fraud or theft.

Less than 12 serious disciplinary cases per year out of 6,259 staff isn't a lot.

And people are actually getting fired. Which is some accomplishment in the public sector.

Well done on Revenue for being a shining example of a public department that works.

Seamus so you think that retiring or resigning should absolve you from theft?

Dpp should be pressing charges.

Financial irregularities and pretending to be sick, are hardly professional conduct. They should be ashamed of themselves and required to pay back they stole. (Abusing sick leave is stealing from your employer )


The yardstick for measuring how good a department is shouldn't be how bad other ones are.

ohnonotgmail

Smondie wrote: »

Seamus so you think that retiring or resigning should absolve you from theft?

Dpp should be pressing charges.

We have no way of knowing if the dpp pressed charges. the article is silent on that point.

Smondie wrote: »

Financial irregularities and pretending to be sick, are hardly professional conduct. They should be ashamed of themselves and required to pay back they stole. (Abusing sick leave is stealing from your employer )


The yardstick for measuring how good a department is shouldn't be how bad other ones are.

no, the yardstick is how the department respond to unprofessional behaviour.

Smondie

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

Seamus so you think that retiring or resigning should absolve you from theft?

Dpp should be pressing charges.

We have no way of knowing if the dpp pressed charges. the article is silent on that point.


no, the yardstick is how the department respond to unprofessional behaviour.

Last year, three workers involved in incidents of misconduct either resigned or retired before a sanction was imposed.


Seems to say that no sanctions imposed so doubtful the dpp is on the case.

seamus

Smondie wrote: »

Seamus so you think that retiring or resigning should absolve you from theft?

An employer can't sanction an employee if they resign or retire. All they can do is make a complaint to the Gardai if such a thing is appropriate.

Dpp should be pressing charges.

Maybe they are. But documents obtained from Revenue won't say anything about that.

The yardstick for measuring how good a department is shouldn't be how bad other ones are.

No, it's how they respond to misconduct in the workplace.

And they appear to be doing very well.

Smondie

seamus wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

Seamus so you think that retiring or resigning should absolve you from theft?

An employer can't sanction an employee if they resign or retire. All they can do is make a complaint to the Gardai if such a thing is appropriate.

Dpp should be pressing charges.

Maybe they are. But documents obtained from Revenue won't say anything about that.

The yardstick for measuring how good a department is shouldn't be how bad other ones are.

No, it's how they respond to misconduct in the workplace.

And they appear to be doing very well.

If they retire sanctions should be impose on thier pension. It's Worrying some where high ranking officials.

ohnonotgmail

Smondie wrote: »

Last year, three workers involved in incidents of misconduct either resigned or retired before a sanction was imposed.


Seems to say that no sanctions imposed so doubtful the dpp is on the case.

sanctions are employer sanctions. you cant sanction somebody who doesnt work for you. what the dpp does is outside the control of the department.

seamus

Smondie wrote: »

If they retire sanctions should be impose on thier pension. It's Worrying some where high ranking officials.

Your employer has no control over your pension.

They would need to take the person to court and prove that damages were incurred which require repayment.

It would cost a hell of a lot more to pursue.

Yes, retiring or resigning is a way to avoid being sanctioned for misconduct. Because there's no way an employer should have any power over you once you're not employed by them.

ohnonotgmail

Smondie wrote: »

If they retire sanctions should be impose on thier pension. It's Worrying some where high ranking officials.

higher executive officers <> high ranking officials.

Smondie

The number of cases of misconduct are increasing year on year suggesting the current solutions are not a deterrent . Maybe it's time to do as suggested.


They would need to take the person to court and prove that damages were incurred which require repayment.

Smondie

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

higher executive officers <> high ranking officials.

so just people who have been there a long time?

corner of hells

Ok , I've gotten my flaming torch and pike ready , do I need them or not ?

Smondie

corner of hells wrote: »

Ok , I've gotten my flaming torch and pike ready , do I need them or not ?

I hope they're both tax compliant