Is it any wonder our country is haemorrhaging money

Fago! · 03-08-2011 09:38AM

listermint wrote: »

And thats my point, They couldnt care less. The fact that they are allowed to have that attitude in the first place is a problem.

If i waltzed around my job with that attitude id be gone before you could say 'Listermint i need to see you in my office'

This agency needs to be closed - permanently.

Sad but true my friend, but that's the world we live in unfortunately. They do it because they can, and they won't get those kinda benefits anywhere else, so they're trying to cling onto them for dear life.

Question - has anyone: 1) a good word to say about fas?.... 2) been helped by them?

Fago! · 03-08-2011 09:40AM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Completely off topic, but how is calling someone boy racist? Did I miss a memo, or something?

Something to do with black people being slaves many moons ago, I guess.

mikemac · 03-08-2011 09:41AM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Completely off topic, but how is calling someone boy racist?

It isn't at all

Fago! · 03-08-2011 09:44AM

mikemac wrote: »

It isn't at all

Crackers used to call black slaves "boy"

up for anything · 03-08-2011 09:45AM

Fago! wrote: »

Most people who complain about perks like these, are those who don't have them. Hell yeah I'd try keep the perks, 70 days off a year would be sweet. Fair play to them.

I'm glad you feel that way especially if you are working because you're paying for them.

Standard Toaster · 03-08-2011 09:51AM

I'll tell you what helps "acclimatise" one to retirement: redundancy.

Tip o' the iceberg tbh. Nothing surprises me anymore.

Fago! · 03-08-2011 09:54AM

up for anything wrote: »

I'm glad you feel that way especially if you are working because you're paying for them.

I do feel like that. I am paying for it, I'm not happy about it, but there's nothing I, or anyone, can do about it bar complain. Same way I can't do anything about paying the licence fee to pay Ryan Tubridy's small fortune of a wage, but I can still say fair play to them, because if I was earning that much with those benefits, I certainly wouldn't care where they came from.

danniemcq · 03-08-2011 10:05AM

Fago! wrote: »

I do feel like that. I am paying for it, I'm not happy about it, but there's nothing I, or anyone, can do about it bar complain. Same way I can't do anything about paying the licence fee to pay Ryan Tubridy's small fortune of a wage, but I can still say fair play to them, because if I was earning that much with those benefits, I certainly wouldn't care where they came from.

Don't pay your TV licence, that makes me feel better.

Much in the same way i won't be paying the property tax or water charges

Fago! · 03-08-2011 10:15AM

danniemcq wrote: »

Don't pay your TV licence, that makes me feel better

Tried it. Ended up in court and feeling guilty. Bastards have a cuddly face you just can't say no to. :pac:

p.s. you'll have the telly licence guy banging your door down for mentioning that here ha. Cunning gits them. Adorable, but cunning - like hamsters.

quaalude · 03-08-2011 10:49AM

Guill wrote: »

Why didn't you complain during the boom?

How do you know they didn't?

danniemcq · 03-08-2011 12:13PM

Fago! wrote: »

Tried it. Ended up in court and feeling guilty. Bastards have a cuddly face you just can't say no to. :pac:

p.s. you'll have the telly licence guy banging your door down for mentioning that here ha. Cunning gits them. Adorable, but cunning - like hamsters.

They can come to the door as often as they like, i just won't answer the door, they can't do anything about it then, Plus the fact i don't actually have a tv helps (go computer with TV card)!

bnt · 03-08-2011 12:21PM

The reason the FAS leave allowance is in the news is because management there realised it was nonsense, and tried to stop it, but were prevented from doing so by the unions.

There was a report in one of the papers yesterday that people taking voluntary redundancy from RTE would get ten years' salary, and I was expecting this thread to be about that. It was bad information, though: redundancy payments will be capped at €60,000. :rolleyes:

Biggins · 03-08-2011 12:52PM

Sleepy wrote: »

More importantly: why is FÁS being re-branded?

Given the levels of corruption and incompetence within the organisation were utterly endemic, surely it'd make far more sense to have scrapped it, made all staff redundant and started again with a white sheet of paper?

Aaa... here - your thinking sense, we can't be having that!

Sure we need the re-branded org and a PR exercise so that jobs for the boys we want to still keep happy, can keep some sort of well paid job and see out their time to get their full massive pensions.

...I'm only joking. Of course its not like I just said above.
Our masters are always doing the right thing by us.
I have to go now and pray for our lord and saviour Enda...

Baaa... baaa.... baaa...

speedboatchase · 03-08-2011 01:15PM

The solution to do is really, really simple and it's been the nearly catch-all antidode to every PS debacle I've seen for the past few years:

Just make it illegal for the public sector to go on strike.

Do it. Ronald Reagan had the balls to do it to the air traffic controllers in the 1980s and we need the balls to implement it right now. Don't like the abolition of your perks, or the fact that jobs need to be shed? There are 450,000 that are ready to step up and you won't be able to potentially the country to ransom with widespread strikes.

bamboozle · 03-08-2011 01:30PM

Fago! wrote: »

Sad but true my friend, but that's the world we live in unfortunately. They do it because they can, and they won't get those kinda benefits anywhere else, so they're trying to cling onto them for dear life.

Question - has anyone: 1) a good word to say about fas?.... 2) been helped by them?

sure hasnt FAS sent over of brightest and best to Florida to train as astronauts....

Ray Palmer · 03-08-2011 02:20PM

People certainly like to be outraged.

They are angry with Fas management because they didn't keep proper tabs on the money in the company. They tried to stop this perk but they still are useless.:p

People are angry at the people who work there because they managed to keep a perk. One that they have a had a long time and only avail of when they have worked there 20 odd years.:rolleyes:

How much money does it actually cost?

If I had it I'd want to keep it and if it doesn't effect productivity I could care less. Rather have healthy people retired than have to pay for people who have ill health.

7sr2z3fely84g5 · 03-08-2011 02:51PM

speedboatchase wrote: »

The solution to do is really, really simple and it's been the nearly catch-all antidode to every PS debacle I've seen for the past few years:

Just make it illegal for the public sector to go on strike.

Do it. Ronald Reagan had the balls to do it to the air traffic controllers in the 1980s and we need the balls to implement it right now. Don't like the abolition of your perks, or the fact that jobs need to be shed? There are 450,000 that are ready to step up and you won't be able to potentially the country to ransom with widespread strikes.

Correct,but this shower in goverment and last shower are mostly made up from former civil servants such as teachers etc,so they probably where delighted when croke park agreement was invented.

its nice to see some people in the sector still live in cloudcuckooland and expect the sector to work in the bertie ahern era.

speedboatchase · 03-08-2011 02:51PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People certainly like to be outraged.

They are angry with Fas management because they didn't keep proper tabs on the money in the company. They tried to stop this perk but they still are useless.:p

People are angry at the people who work there because they managed to keep a perk. One that they have a had a long time and only avail of when they have worked there 20 odd years.:rolleyes:

How much money does it actually cost?

If I had it I'd want to keep it and if it doesn't effect productivity I could care less. Rather have healthy people retired than have to pay for people who have ill health.

But you don't have this perk. And yet you're paying for it, for people to 'acclimatise' for 70 paid days out of work - are you alright with that?

Ray Palmer · 03-08-2011 03:01PM

speedboatchase wrote: »

But you don't have this perk. And yet you're paying for it, for people to 'acclimatise' for 70 paid days out of work - are you alright with that?

Yes I am OK with it. I think it probably doesn't cost that much money. How much money are you feeling outraged by?

So how much would be enough to anger you? Out of all the staff in fas how many are at this point? How long do you have to work there before you can get it? If it was one of your parents would you want them to give it up?

How much work is a 63-64 year old really doing that they can't fit into a 4 day week?

As I said people just find something to be outraged at. I don't think this is valid one.

tayto lover · 03-08-2011 03:04PM

Anything The Herald prints should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is our version of The Sun. I don't know a lot about Fas but surely there are some very efficient members of staff there too who will lose out in the reshuffle and don't deserve to do so. Like the Public Sector much of the waste seems to be at the top but the ordinary decent worker at the bottom will again lose out.
There is again a lot of hysterics on this thread.

maninasia · 03-08-2011 03:15PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People certainly like to be outraged.

They are angry with Fas management because they didn't keep proper tabs on the money in the company. They tried to stop this perk but they still are useless.:p

People are angry at the people who work there because they managed to keep a perk. One that they have a had a long time and only avail of when they have worked there 20 odd years.:rolleyes:

How much money does it actually cost?

If I had it I'd want to keep it and if it doesn't effect productivity I could care less. Rather have healthy people retired than have to pay for people who have ill health.

70 days off paid per year, 140 days in total, about half a working year.

How could it NOT affect productivity? Arguments like yours just amaze me.

speedboatchase · 03-08-2011 03:16PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yes I am OK with it. I think it probably doesn't cost that much money. How much money are you feeling outraged by?

So how much would be enough to anger you? Out of all the staff in fas how many are at this point? How long do you have to work there before you can get it? If it was one of your parents would you want them to give it up?

How much work is a 63-64 year old really doing that they can't fit into a 4 day week?

As I said people just find something to be outraged at. I don't think this is valid one.

The principle comes before the money here (I realise that sounds cheesy). That taxpayer money going towards the 70 days is a black hole and the idea that employees need those days to 'acclimatise' is laughable and inexcusable, no matter the amount of money it costs.

It should be absolutely dropped without discussion, for me it's as simple as that. Saying "what if it was your parents?" is a meaningless hypothetical. It simply can't be justified and that's why people are angry, not to mention that its existence is funded (however little the amount) from their wage slips. If the FAS employees want to strike about it, go for it, although I'd imagine they would be laughed at by the average worker for their inconvenient plight.

Honestly, some people on here will defend anything

listermint · 03-08-2011 03:17PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People certainly like to be outraged.

They are angry with Fas management because they didn't keep proper tabs on the money in the company. They tried to stop this perk but they still are useless.:p

People are angry at the people who work there because they managed to keep a perk. One that they have a had a long time and only avail of when they have worked there 20 odd years.:rolleyes:

How much money does it actually cost?

If I had it I'd want to keep it and if it doesn't effect productivity I could care less. Rather have healthy people retired than have to pay for people who have ill health.

Ray you cant excuse it just because people have worked in the sector for '20 years' That is the exact crap mentality that is in that sector jobs for the boys, jobs for anne because anne worked on the front desk for 5 years.... its all balls. It has nothing to do with merit what so ever. Just bide your time and have it handy.

But is cool your okay with that. Pay people to do nothing cushy. Sure weve been doing this for years.. Absolutely sickening is what is is. There is nothing dynamic or efficient about vast swades of the sector. And its just chomping away cash from other starved front line services.

But well done anyway Ray good commentary

maninasia · 03-08-2011 03:17PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Anything The Herald prints should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is our version of The Sun. I don't know a lot about Fas but surely there are some very efficient members of staff there too who will lose out in the reshuffle and don't deserve to do so. Like the Public Sector much of the waste seems to be at the top but the ordinary decent worker at the bottom will again lose out.
There is again a lot of hysterics on this thread.

FAS has been a failure with studies showing it even REDUCED the chance of getting a job after completing their courses.

Ray Palmer · 03-08-2011 03:59PM

speedboatchase wrote: »

The principle comes before the money here (I realise that sounds cheesy). That taxpayer money going towards the 70 days is a black hole and the idea that employees need those days to 'acclimatise' is laughable and inexcusable, no matter the amount of money it costs.

What is laughable is that you can only equated it on the basis of days off and not productivity. Principle would be that an organization should care for its employers. That would mean that you hope they are healthy and balanced when leaving your employment. Different principle, the problem should really be why doesn't everybody do it!

maninasia wrote: »

70 days off paid per year, 140 days in total, about half a working year.

How could it NOT affect productivity? Arguments like yours just amaze me.

If you don't understand how it can't reduce productivity I would guess you would be of the mind there is no diminishing returns on overtime either. Many jobs could be done in less hours if there was an incentive of there was less time to do it.

I have worked in both public an private sectors and both are inefficient as each other. Private sector has the added bonus of unpaid overtime which makes people even less effective. So you have a company and it's staff being ineffective.

People don't seem to get the entitlement is earned over a long period not everybody it gets it and not that many in any given year. It was negotiated while other benefits were cut are heavily penalized. Other incentives include paid education, study leave, term time and flexi-time. These are things we should all get. The real issue is we should all get this stuff rather than begrudge those who have it.

There is no excuse for this there doesn't need to be everybody should get it!

tayto lover · 03-08-2011 03:59PM

maninasia wrote: »

FAS has been a failure with studies showing it even REDUCED the chance of getting a job after completing their courses.

I can't disagree if that's true. I think many of these courses are designed for early school leavers to keep them off the streets and prevent crime. There are not many jobs out there anyway for this kind of client anyway.
Their other courses seemed to have been geared around construction and we have enough qualified people in this field also.

Ray Palmer · 03-08-2011 04:00PM

maninasia wrote: »

FAS has been a failure with studies showing it even REDUCED the chance of getting a job after completing their courses.

Citation needed for that blanket statement because that goes against my personal experience and knowledge.

Paddy Samurai · 03-08-2011 04:54PM

Boardsies,we must rally around our beleguered comrades and give them our full support in these unjustified attacks on their rightfull entitlements.

What say you brothers??.

FÁS staff are going to the Labour Court to protect their right to 'pre-retirement leave' of up to 44 extra days.
Under existing arrangements, FÁS staff are entitled to dozens of extra days of annual leave in the two years prior to their retirement.
The number of extra days FÁS workers get - on top of their 26 days of regular annual leave - depends on each worker's length of service.
Those who have worked more than 25 years receive the maximum allowance of 44 days extra - up to 70 days in total.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0803/fas.html

Its terrible the way everyone keeps attacking these poor workers,after many years of public service.:rolleyes:

py2006 · 03-08-2011 04:55PM

Some of them are not even working when in there! Empty classrooms!! :rolleyes:

Chuck Stone · 03-08-2011 04:55PM

Coddled bastards.

Is it any wonder our country is haemorrhaging money

Comments