What the Government don’t tell us

PaddyGannon

Here is a little incite into what this government hide from us. They go on about how good they are by cutting staff in the public sector but at what cost.

My uncle is in the first week of his new retirement. He would have been on a good wage but now he pays a lot less tax and takes home more then ever before.

He is 58 years of age and the offer to him was 50% of his wages until he is 65. Now he comes out with €50.00 a week less than he was getting before but is paying very little in tax.

Here is the kicker. He gets a lump sum of about €70,000 which they said would be roughly equivalent to his tax credits for the next 7 years to bring him to 65 when his FULL pension kicks in. So that is 10,000 a year tax free, that comes to over €190 per week. Add that to what he is getting on his half pay, now he walks out with roughly €140.00 a week in his hand more than he was earning before Christmas and doesn’t have to work and worse still is paying hardly any tax.

If he takes another job he will have to pay tax on his full earnings as he is taking the lump sum, so there isn’t even an incentive for him to work and pay something back to the country.

im invisible

[sic]

Godge

PaddyGannon wrote: »

Here is a little incite into what this government hide from us. They go on about how good they are by cutting staff in the public sector but at what cost.

My uncle is in the first week of his new retirement. He would have been on a good wage but now he pays a lot less tax and takes home more then ever before.

He is 58 years of age and the offer to him was 50% of his wages until he is 65. Now he comes out with €50.00 a week less than he was getting before but is paying very little in tax.

Here is the kicker. He gets a lump sum of about €70,000 which they said would be roughly equivalent to his tax credits for the next 7 years to bring him to 65 when his FULL pension kicks in. So that is 10,000 a year tax free, that comes to over €190 per week. Add that to what he is getting on his half pay, now he walks out with roughly €140.00 a week in his hand more than he was earning before Christmas and doesn’t have to work and worse still is paying hardly any tax.

If he takes another job he will have to pay tax on his full earnings as he is taking the lump sum, so there isn’t even an incentive for him to work and pay something back to the country.

Where was he employed?

spank_inferno

That round of Voluntary Redundancy was a pretty good deal, especially for those close to retirement at the top of their respective scales.

Our neighbour/friend of my parents got the same deal, he was 60 & finished up early in 2012.

It could be speculation but I did hear that future rounds of VR will not be more targeted and not as generous with its terms.

juan.kerr

I really don't see how there redundancy schemes saved money. Yes, they reduced headcount, but at what cost?

Icepick

It was a typical public service PR exercise. That's why there need to be a blanket cut and further cuts and lay offs depending on performance.

Godge

spank_inferno wrote: »

That round of Voluntary Redundancy was a pretty good deal, especially for those close to retirement at the top of their respective scales.

Our neighbour/friend of my parents got the same deal, he was 60 & finished up early in 2012.

It could be speculation but I did hear that future rounds of VR will not be more targeted and not as generous with its terms.

juan.kerr wrote: »

I really don't see how there redundancy schemes saved money. Yes, they reduced headcount, but at what cost?

Icepick wrote: »

It was a typical public service PR exercise. That's why there need to be a blanket cut and further cuts and lay offs depending on performance.

Until the OP answers my question about where the person retired from (HSE? ESB? Bord Gais? AIB?) there is little point in commenting on this thread as it is only hearsay. Once we know which organisation, we can look at the terms of the redundancies, the remit of the organisation etc. and comment accordingly.

PaddyGannon

Sorry, only getting back to Boards now. He was in the ESB.

I will add, my job involves me dealing with the HSE and I have been given examples of this kind of thing with people I have dealt with over the years there too.

Celticfire

PaddyGannon wrote: »

Here is a little incite into what this government hide from us. They go on about how good they are by cutting staff in the public sector but at what cost.

He was in the ESB

So he wasn't in the Public Sector ?

monkeypants

PaddyGannon wrote: »

I have been given examples of this kind of thing with people I have dealt with over the years there too.

By their HR department?

woodoo

Very important that you mention where he worked OP. The ESB are a semi state company and not part of the public service. They have not had a paycut or the pension levy.

jimmycrackcorm

Celticfire wrote: »

So he wasn't in the Public Sector ?

Who owns the ESB?
Perhaps the definition of "public sector" should be clarified.

hunglikeaflee

monkeypants wrote: »

By their HR department?

No, by the people themselves.
I would have dealt with people at or near the top grade levels of the HSE. A lot of these have now retired with similar stories to my original post.

Celticfire wrote: »

So he wasn't in the Public Sector ?

The ESB is state owned and the staff reductions and agreed payments had to be passed by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

juan.kerr

Who provided the capital to setup the ESB? Who guarantees it's borrowings?

The ESB has been overcharging the Irish public for years while the staff have all sorts of perks like free units of electricity, not to mention shares in the company.

monkeypants

hunglikeaflee wrote: »

No, by the people themselves.
I would have dealt with people at or near the top grade levels of the HSE. A lot of these have now retired with similar stories to my original post.

I'm always amazed by these people who give out such detail to all and sundry willingly. I don't tell anyone anything about my financial situation or my job unless I have to. Surely these people must know by now that anything they give away now becomes anecdotal, rabble-rousing evidence that will be embellished and used against them for years to come.

Celticfire

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Who owns the ESB?
Perhaps the definition of "public sector" should be clarified.

hunglikeaflee wrote: »

The ESB is state owned and the staff reductions and agreed payments had to be passed by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

juan.kerr wrote: »

Who provided the capital to setup the ESB? Who guarantees it's borrowings?

The ESB has been overcharging the Irish public for years while the staff have all sorts of perks like free units of electricity, not to mention shares in the company.

Doesn't matter.... still not a Public Sector worker. FACT

If he was he would have had a pay cut and pension levy imposed on him like every other Public Sector worker in the state, instead he was awarded a pay rise under the "Towards 2016" national pay agreement.

kippy

Any chance this thread can be closed?
More spurious "sources" than a Daily Mail article.

PaddyGannon

Celticfire wrote: »

Doesn't matter.... still not a Public Sector worker. FACT

If he was he would have had a pay cut and pension levy imposed on him like every other Public Sector worker in the state, instead he was awarded a pay rise under the "Towards 2016" national pay agreement.

I think you are splitting hairs here. If you prefer I will stand corrected.

Read the heading of the post and that doesn’t change. At the end of the day, the cuts that are been made in the numbers are still been called for by the government and are still costing us more money than if these people continued to work. Yet the government continue to blow theirs horn about how goo they are by cutting all these jobs.

kippy

PaddyGannon wrote: »

I think you are splitting hairs here. If you prefer I will stand corrected.

Read the heading of the post and that doesn’t change. At the end of the day, the cuts that are been made in the numbers are still been called for by the government and are still costing us more money than if these people continued to work. Yet the government continue to blow theirs horn about how goo they are by cutting all these jobs.

You think they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the IMF/EU contingent as well do you?

PaddyGannon

kippy wrote: »

Any chance this thread can be closed?
More spurious "sources" than a Daily Mail article.

My source is my uncle and is a fact. If the thread upsets you or makes you look or feel bad may I suggest you just don’t read it.

I merely started this thread to state a fact and point it out to others. Would it not be better to discuss something rather than do what the government do and burry our heads in the sand and hope it goes away?

kippy

PaddyGannon wrote: »

My source is my uncle and is a fact. If the thread upsets you or makes you look or feel bad may I suggest you just don’t read it.

I merely started this thread to state a fact and point it out to others. Would it not be better to discuss something rather than do what the government do and burry our heads in the sand and hope it goes away?

My definition of facts and your definition of facts appear to be some way apart.

Again I'd ask, do you think the "Government" are pulling the wool over the eyes of the EU/IMF as well as the general population, based on your knowledge of the "facts"?

The thread upsets me because it is in the Irish Economy forum and peddling unknown and untrustworthy information as factual.

PaddyGannon

kippy wrote: »

You think they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the IMF/EU contingent as well do you?

No they are not and that is what makes them and us for putting them in power look like twats.

Just look at what is in the press over the rest of the world about what is happening in Ireland. Every one else can see what is going on.

Godge

PaddyGannon wrote: »

Sorry, only getting back to Boards now. He was in the ESB.

I will add, my job involves me dealing with the HSE and I have been given examples of this kind of thing with people I have dealt with over the years there too.

ESB is not the public sector.

ESB is run at an arms length distance from the Government, in a similar way to the new State-owned banks.

http://acts2.oireachtas.ie/zza27y1927.2.html

As you will see from the above 1927 legislation, the ESB is free to pay its staff what it wants as it is a commercial state body. That freedom includes redundancy arrangements.

That is very different to the Civil Service where the Minister has powers.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1956/en/act/pub/0046/sec0018.html#sec18


See Section 18 above where the Minister has the power in relation to civil servants, a legislative provision which is absent from the legislation governing commercial state bodies.

There is a big debate over what is going on within commercial state bodies in relation to pay and pensions but they are different, very different to an ordinary teacher, nurse, guard or civil servant.

In making big claims, you need to be very careful to distinguish between the two situations. Otherwise you are leaving yourself open to the accusation that you don't know what you are talking about.

Unfortunately, on these boards, the ability to first understand and then distinguish between what is happening in different sectors and situations is not generally there and we have silly generalisations that the government is hiding things.

Scofflaw

PaddyGannon wrote: »

No they are not and that is what makes them and us for putting them in power look like twats.

Just look at what is in the press over the rest of the world about what is happening in Ireland. Every one else can see what is going on.

Press coverage of Ireland is pretty positive internationally.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PaddyGannon

Godge wrote: »

ESB is not the public sector.

Read my post above #18.

Godge wrote: »

As you will see from the above 1927 legislation, the ESB is free to pay its staff what it wants as it is a commercial state body. That freedom includes redundancy arrangements.

I don’t see any mention of redundancy in that legislation. The government have the final say over how much is paid out on these packages. In the past they have refused to allow, what they called “a generous ESB severance deal” So if the ESB had the freedom as you say, this couldn’t happen.

OK not public sector but it is still this government that are insisting on the reduction in staff, it is still this government that set the amount of money given to the people that take the package and it is still this government that boast about the cut they are making in staff numbers while hiding the fact that it is costing more to do it.

kippy

PaddyGannon wrote: »

Read my post above #18.




I don’t see any mention of redundancy in that legislation. The government have the final say over how much is paid out on these packages. In the past they have refused to allow, what they called “a generous ESB severance deal” So if the ESB had the freedom as you say, this couldn’t happen.

OK not public sector but it is still this government that are insisting on the reduction in staff, it is still this government that set the amount of money given to the people that take the package and it is still this government that boast about the cut they are making in staff numbers while hiding the fact that it is costing more to do it.

I don't know why this thread is still open.
It is based on unfounded rumour and speculation with absolutely no reputable sources. Furthermore the original posters original assertions, as leaky as they were originally, have been shown to be completely inaccurate at best.

I'll give you one more chance:
Are you 100% sure that your final quote (in bold) is 100% accurate?
If so what are you basing this on?

baldy78

I may be accused of adding to unfounded rumour as I'm almost certain that the ESB do not publish their policies.

The electricity generation market was opened to competition approximately 7 years ago. Until around a year ago the price that ESB could charge was kept artificially high by the regulator and so the competition to the market did not immediately result in more competitive practices by the ESB until recently. As the ESB have shed a considerable proportion of their customers and other generators have come in their workforce needs to be reduced accordingly.

As a semi state company it is highly unionised and has had very favourable employment terms historically. The ploy at the present time appears to be to try to shed the older workers by offering very enticing packages. This strategy also allows the ESB employ some replacement workers on less favourable employment contracts. It is a long term strategy and while I don't know the exact details of the OP's relatives case he is quite correct in saying that some of these workers will cost the ESB more in the short term than if they were still employed. This is not a disaster for the ESB as the cost of labour is relatively minor when it comes to power generation.

However I have to agree with the other posters that the title of this thread does not make sense. This has nothing to do with the government or what they do or do not tell us. Rightly or wrongly the cost is borne by the bill payers in a market that is now deregulated.

K-9

At this stage I'm wondering what the anecdote in the OP has to do with the title of the thread, I think it might be better all round to lock it up.