Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

If somebody retires, it would be ludicrous not to rehire them

Comments

  • #2
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    I thought the point of retiring was that you were finished doing the job.


  • #3
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Charlie McConalogue, what a class name :)


  • #4
    chin_grin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,808 ✭✭✭✭chin_grin


    "So what you're saying is..............I have a chance! YES!"
    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Charlie McConalogue, what a class name :)

    Should hear when he gets going.

    The "Vagina Conologues" they call it.


  • #5
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    No, he said a prohibition on rehiring health service staff who leave before pension changes are introduced at the end of the month would be “utterly ludicrous”.

    Do you happen to work for the Irish Independent?


  • #6
    phasers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,159 ✭✭✭✭phasers


    If they retire then come back to work do they keep getting their pension or wha?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Don't see the problem with rehiring them if needed to be honest. THey are retiring because their employer is changing the conditions of employment - onthing wrong with that. If they have the skills and they are needed give them a contract. This sort of thing happens all the time in private sector by the way.


  • #8
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Thread Title wrote:
    If somebody retires, it would be ludicrous not to rehire them
    Article Title wrote:
    'Ludicrous' to prohibit rehiring of retired staff, says Reilly

    This is how rumours get started, OP.


  • #9
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    phasers wrote: »
    If they retire then come back to work do they keep getting their pension or wha?

    Why wouldn't they ?
    New job new contract.
    These people aren't doing anything wrong.


  • #10
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    I thought the idea was to reduce the numbers?
    Can someone who has a clue explain what is going on...


  • #11
    finlma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 712 ✭✭✭finlma


    bleg wrote: »
    So says our reforming Minister for Health James Reilly. Has anybody been impressed with this guy since he got into office.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0210/1224311572930.html

    bleg says "he got into office" by kicking the door in and murdering everyone inside.

    Anyone can totally misquote a person. At least have the decency to do it correctly. I think James Reilly is making an effort to change the health system in very difficult times. Fair play to him


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    davetherave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭davetherave


    phasers wrote: »
    If they retire then come back to work do they keep getting their pension or wha?
    I know that in the defence forces if a person retires to take a civie job in the DF, then with some new legislation or something the combined amount of pension and new salary can not be more than old salary.


  • #13
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    I thought the idea was to reduce the numbers?
    Can someone who has a clue explain what is going on...

    The idea was to reduce the pension burden and to some extent the numbers.

    They did this by introducing a blanket rule. So people applied. Trouble is people in important roles with noone to replace them applied and received this deal - as they were entitled to and as was only fair.

    Now the government are facing the prospect of having to rehire some of them as they clearly didnt' think this whole thing through. Not the individuals fault.

    If these people had stayed in their jobs they would lose vast chunk of their pension entitlements. You can hardly blame them for acting sensibly. You can blame the government for no thinking things through


  • #14
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Why wouldn't they ?
    New job new contract.
    These people aren't doing anything wrong.

    Because it's the same company. I think there's a legal issue with giving redundancy and then re-hiring within the same company within a 12 month period.


  • #15
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Some of the best and most experienced people left
    And the dead wood remained

    Would it have been so difficult to target areas for redundancy? :confused:
    Do the HSE realy need two thousand people in HR? Soft, safe job

    Good plan, the way they did it is all messed up, I'd expect nothing less :D


  • #16
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    smash wrote: »
    Because it's the same company. I think there's a legal issue with giving redundancy and then re-hiring within the same company within a 12 month period.

    Its not redundancy, its early retirement. There's a difference.
    Also you don't have to rehire them - you can take them on as a contractor.


  • #17
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Some of the best and most experienced people left
    And the dead wood remained

    Would it have been so difficult to target areas for redundancy? :confused:
    Do the HSE realy need two thousand people in HR? Soft, safe job

    Good plan, the way they did it is all messed up, I'd expect nothing less :D


    Brilliant. They should have gotten rid of people based on competency.
    Retarded country.


  • #18
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    smash wrote: »
    Because it's the same company. I think there's a legal issue with giving redundancy and then re-hiring within the same company within a 12 month period.

    I think that only applies to getting a refund from the State on statutory redundancy. So no legal issue - if a company wants to pay someone redundancy over and over and rehire them again and again it's their choice. Obviously this wouldn't happen in the private sector.


  • #19
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Why wouldn't they ?
    New job new contract.
    These people aren't doing anything wrong.

    They aren't doing anything wrong, but the fúcking gombeens in charge allowing them to retire, claim pensions and then start right back in their old job, only now getting wages and pension - they aren't doing anything right!

    On a similar note, my mates brother works for the corpo collecting bins, well at least he did, to "save money" the bin collection was subd out to a private company (greyhound, i think). The corpo now pay greyhound to collect the bins AND pay my mates brother to scratch his arse doing nothing - in fact in the past week or two they've paid him to scratch his arse and brought him on the viking splash tour and to dublin zoo!
    You couldn't make this shít up!!


  • #20
    phasers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,159 ✭✭✭✭phasers


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Why wouldn't they ?
    New job new contract.
    These people aren't doing anything wrong.
    That's a load of bollox! If you're working you shouldn't receive a pension, especially if it's the same feckin job!

    How is this saving the government any money?


  • #21
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    T

    On a similar note, my mates brother works for the corpo collecting bins, well at least he did, to "save money" the bin collection was subd out to a private company (greyhound, i think). The corpo now pay greyhound to collect the bins AND pay my mates brother to scratch his arse doing nothing - in fact in the past week or two they've paid him to scratch his arse and brought him on the viking splash tour and to dublin zoo!
    You couldn't make this shít up!!

    They interviewed a few working men on Joe Duffy show about this
    The department is "cleansing services", something like that

    The ex-binmen are going to be get transferred soon enough, they won't be left doing nothing.

    Some might go to the water department for example

    I heard about the trip to the zoo, that's just they brought everyone to HQ for briefings and then had time to spare, just send everyone off somewhere


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    marketty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭marketty


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    I thought the idea was to reduce the numbers?
    Can someone who has a clue explain what is going on...

    According to Joe Public everyone in the public sector is useless/lazy/surplus to requirements, so the government tried to get as many as possible to retire early and had a recruitment ban to slash the numbers, and slashed the entitlements of new entrants to save money.
    Unfortunately it's now becoming clear that the PS can't lose all these numbers and still provide the same level of service, so some people need to be rehired as contractors to fill the gaps.
    The idea of oversimplifying the cuts by applying them across the board has got us into this situation. Reducing numbers and improving efficiency in the PS is a complex problem and can't be solved as easily as the papers suggest


  • #23
    lastlaugh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭lastlaugh


    phasers wrote: »
    If they retire then come back to work do they keep getting their pension or wha?

    They will keep getting their pension, but it will be viewed as taxable income combined with their 'new' job, so they will taxed heavily.


  • #24
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    The ex-binmen are going to be get transferred soon enough, they won't be left doing nothing.

    Some might go to the water department for example

    AFAIK they asked them all to take redundancy and there were jobs there for them in greyhound, but no one really went for it for the simple fact that greyhound expect there employees to work and can fire them if the don't.

    It's a pointless excercise, they need to be getting rid of people not moving them around. And certainly not as in the hse example paying them off and then paying them to come back - that's just stupidity in anyones language.


Advertisement