Retired Public Workers filling jobs

06-01-2013 01:29PM

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 · 06-01-2013 01:35PM

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 · 06-01-2013 02:18PM

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 · 06-01-2013 03:42PM

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 · 06-01-2013 06:21PM

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 · 06-01-2013 06:31PM

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 · 06-01-2013 08:16PM

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 · 06-01-2013 10:48PM

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 · 06-01-2013 11:27PM

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 · 07-01-2013 10:53AM

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 · 07-01-2013 11:07AM

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.

07-01-2013 06:36PM

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 · 07-01-2013 06:43PM

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 · 07-01-2013 08:04PM

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 · 07-01-2013 09:01PM

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 · 08-01-2013 06:25AM

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 · 08-01-2013 07:44AM

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 · 08-01-2013 09:16AM

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 · 08-01-2013 02:03PM

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 · 08-01-2013 02:19PM

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.

repsol · 08-01-2013 02:37PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

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

Who would you rather have treat your wife and unborn baby? The best qualified person for the job or a young person with no experience?

08-01-2013 03:55PM

How can inexperienced people get experience if the positions are hogged by retired people?

Mr. teddywinkles · 08-01-2013 03:59PM

repsol wrote: »

Who would you rather have treat your wife and unborn baby? The best qualified person for the job or a young person with no experience?

The best person with experience along side the trainee, but you seem to forget a trainee does advance with experience. My opinion your retired or your not which is it. Choose!

hardCopy · 08-01-2013 04:05PM

I don't see the issue with retired people wanting to top up their pension. There's no moral question involved as far as I can see, if a shop wants to employ an ex-Gard that's the owner's choice. He shouldn't be penalised for not employing someone currently on the dole.

The question of hospitals and schools employing retired staff is a different matter, these are state owned organisations that are controlled to some degree by government policy, if the government want to show that they value the contribution of young people then they could easily bring in a policy preventing state institutions from re-hiring retired staff. Even at that I don't think there is anything morally wrong with working and drawing a pension at the same time, it's no different to working two jobs in my eyes.

Procrastastudy · 08-01-2013 05:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

How can inexperienced people get experience if the positions are hogged by retired people?

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

The best person with experience along side the trainee, but you seem to forget a trainee does advance with experience. My opinion your retired or your not which is it. Choose!

They can train while receiving the various benefits the state provides. They can work in intern positions. They can also take an active role in resolving the daft measures that have been taken in the Public Service and hospitals. It's pretty clear that the current recruitment ban isn't working - that's not the fault of people that are drawing a pension which was part of the T&Cs of their job and now seek to top it up.

hardCopy wrote: »

I don't see the issue with retired people wanting to top up their pension. There's no moral question involved as far as I can see, if a shop wants to employ an ex-Gard that's the owner's choice. He shouldn't be penalised for not employing someone currently on the dole.

That person (employee rather than employer) is however taxed which indirectly pays for people who don't have a job not to starve to death - the more you earn the more you are taxed (at the levels we're talking about). Perhaps if we cut taxes people on pensions wouldn't need to work a job in addition to their pensions. Then of course people would be moaning about all the starving children they had, who they can't support - and probably couldn't in the first place, but had them any way.

08-01-2013 06:31PM

If a person retires, then they should stay retired. If the want to stay working, then stay working! Let those of us who haven't been so lucky have a chance. If business are being run properly, then when a person retires, there is someone waiting in the wings to take over. It's not about the rights of a person to work, it's about retired people showing consideration to those less fortunate than them and letting them get back into employment, paying their own way and improving their lot. Internships and training are not the answer.

Procrastastudy · 08-01-2013 07:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If a person retires, then they should stay retired. If the want to stay working, then stay working! Let those of us who haven't been so lucky have a chance. If business are being run properly, then when a person retires, there is someone waiting in the wings to take over. It's not about the rights of a person to work, it's about retired people showing consideration to those less fortunate than them and letting them get back into employment, paying their own way and improving their lot. Internships and training are not the answer.

So we make it illegal for people to retire and take on a second job. Now rather than a senior nurse retiring and taking on a part-time carers role she stays on to the bitter end preventing the people below her moving up and new people entering the profession. How does that solve the issue? To say that training isn't the answer is concerning to say the least.

EDIT: You are aware that all a pension is an investment plan - are you suggesting that anyone who is a prudent saver shouldn't be allowed to work?

mikemac1 · 08-01-2013 08:26PM

repsol wrote: »

Who would you rather have treat your wife and unborn baby? The best qualified person for the job or a young person with no experience?

Now there's a loaded question :rolleyes:

repsol · 08-01-2013 11:47PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

The best person with experience along side the trainee, but you seem to forget a trainee does advance with experience. My opinion your retired or your not which is it. Choose!

Nobody said anything about trainees.The example used was a qualified experienced person vs a qualified inexperienced person.Both have the same pay expectations but would be poles apart in what they bring to the table.Same in any job.A bricklayer with 20 years experience will be on the same rate as a guy who finished his apprenticeship yesterday.Anyone running a business cannot afford the luxury of hiring anything less than the best candidate.I am not retired nor will I be entitled to for several years.When I do retire,I will work if I feel like it,its my choice.

looksee · 09-01-2013 10:43AM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Why retire at all then?

Because in the Public Service you do not have any choice. You get to 65, you have to retire. And in the time I was working I did not see anyone - not one - person come back to work after they had retired.

Retired Public Workers filling jobs

Comments