Absolam wrote: » Well, if you're unable to work two jobs, but can work one, you don't stop getting paid disability allowance if you've insurance; like Senator Norris did. Sure hundreds of people don't have insurance, but that doesn't seem a good reason to attack people who have. Income protection insurance is generally paid for by the individual insured, from their salary. Is there a reason to imagine his insurance policy was publicly rather than personally funded?
Absolam wrote: » Do you think the individual was capable of returning to his old job whilst drawing that pension? And can you explain how qualified you are to make that judgement?
Absolam wrote: » Perhaps the Senate job isn't as demanding as the Trinity job? It certainly couldn't be as demanding as both.
MrPudding wrote: » LOL. Irony much? MrP
RainyDay wrote: » Sorry if this is stating the obvious, but you're unable to continue doing two jobs, then you give up one, well then you stop being paid for it. Hundreds of people face these decisions every year, and don't have the luxury of a publicly funded insurance policy to cushion them. Perhaps he should have given up his Senate post and reverted to his full-time lecturer post?
RainyDay wrote: » And actually, in my limited experience, insurance companies do seem to be easy going on this. I know of one individual who stepped down from a senior multinational post on a disability pension due to back injury, who ended up running a startup a couple of years later, while boasting about the cushion his disability pension continued to provide.
RainyDay wrote: » I don't get how he was fit for work in the Senate, but not in Trinity.
Lurkio wrote: » This was explained during the presidential election. Either look it up or don't. Whats your problem with Norris?
RainyDay wrote: » S Again, what has the 20 years got to do with it? You don't earn entitlement to disability pension with years of service. It is due to medical qualification - either you are fit for work or you're not. I don't get how he was fit for work in the Senate, but not in Trinity.
Absolam wrote: » Perhaps the stress of doing two jobs at the same time (as he had been) after being ill was too great a strain and he decided or was told it was better for his health to cut down to one? That would seem fairly reasonable, especially given his advancing age. I can't imagine the insurance company would have continued paying out if they felt they had grounds not to; insurance companies aren't notoriously easy going.
Lurkio wrote: » And after 20 years hes entitled to it. He was entitled to step down as lecturer and claim the disability. Whats your problem with Norris?
frostyjacks wrote: » It's laughable how Norris gets a free pass from the liberal intelligentsia. .............
RainyDay wrote: » What is the relevance of his length of service as a lecturer? It really doesn't matter whether he worked from 3 months or 20 years, there is entitlement to disability built-up based on service.
RainyDay wrote: » Again, my problem is that he took a disability pension from Trinity while working as a Senator. Could you please explain to me how a person can be fit for work as a Senator, but not as a lecturer?
frostyjacks wrote: » It's laughable how Norris gets a free pass from the liberal intelligentsia. His views on paedophilia, his support for a child rapist...can you imagine the howls of indignation if Iona were up to those tricks.
RainyDay wrote: » What is the relevance of his length of service as a lecturer? It really doesn't matter whether he worked from 3 months or 20 years, there is entitlement to disability built-up based on service. Again, my problem is that he took a disability pension from Trinity while working as a Senator. Could you please explain to me how a person can be fit for work as a Senator, but not as a lecturer?
Lurkio wrote: » He served 20 years as a lecturer and was entitled to do what he did. This has been gone over in public a number of times, so again - whats your problem with Norris?
RainyDay wrote: » My problem is that he drew a disability pension from Trinity while working in the Senate.
Lurkio wrote: » Whats your problem with Norris?
RainyDay wrote: » Source please? This article quotes his statement as "He was therefore replaced by another member of staff and had been put on a disability pension by the college."http://www.thejournal.ie/norris-received-disability-allowance-because-of-hepatitis-diagnosis-245877-Oct2011/ If it was a private income protection policy, the college would have no role in putting him on a disability pension. Please explain to me how somebody can be medically unfit to lecture, while capable of carrying out the role of Senator?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Not this shi'ite again. Norris paid for an income protection plan out of his salary himself.
Cabaal wrote: » Pretty underhanded to go after a person due to health issues they have, the chap was perfectly entitled to it. You keep on grasping eh
RainyDay wrote: » The nation has made a great contribution to David Norris, by paying him a disability pension for 16 years while he was working in the Seanad (and paid there too).http://www.thejournal.ie/norris-received-disability-allowance-because-of-hepatitis-diagnosis-245877-Oct2011/
RainyDay wrote: » Where does TCD get funding to pay their insurance premiums from?
Absolam wrote: » I thought it was TCD paying him the disability pension? From an income protection insurance fund?
RainyDay wrote: » The nation has made a great contribution to David Norris, by paying him a disability pension for 16 years while he was working in the Seanad (and paid there too). http://www.thejournal.ie/norris-received-disability-allowance-because-of-hepatitis-diagnosis-245877-Oct2011/
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » The current Seanad is not that, but the university panels are the closest thing to that. David Norris for instance has made a great contribution to national politics but would have little or no chance of ever being elected to the Dail.
recedite wrote: » All very laudable, but you are barking up the wrong tree. There is no point in any country having two parliaments. "Checks and balances" to govt. power are necessary, but the established way of doing this in a republic is to give the President executive power to implement the laws, while the legislature writes the laws. As in France, or the USA where Congress balances the White House. As we have chosen against this model, we only have effective checks on the govt. at those rare times when the govt. has insufficient numbers to fully control and sideline the Dail. As it happens, that time is now.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » He'd only have a chance of Dail election because of his long and distinguished Seanad career, you prove my point.
recedite wrote: » Its funny how every defence of the Seanad always ends up citing David Norris. If he dies, there will be no justification at all left for it. BTW I'd say he would have a very good chance of election to the Dail. Maybe not at the start of his career, but nowadays he would. But hey, that's democracy for you.
If you voted in the referendum to retain the Seanad, and then voted in their elections, ask yourself this question; is there a little part of you that likes the idea that you are voting in an election that the other half of the country are not allowed to vote in? This idea that the university panels and their electorate know better than everybody else is annoying to, well... everybody else.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » But the party hacks we have now were individually elected - even a popular party can see locally unpopular candidates rejected. A list system means that candidates presented by the party get elected in proportion to their national vote - voters have no veto over list candidates however odious they are.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » David Norris for instance has made a great contribution to national politics but would have little or no chance of ever being elected to the Dail.
marienbad wrote: » You mean even worse than party hacks we are already saddled with ? At list the list system frees us somewhat from the fixing the potholes brigade
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » A list system is great in theory; in practice the worst sort of party hacks will be on the list without an original thought in their head.
