HSE Paid Career Breaks

sharper

kippy wrote: »

They generally do in the public sector as well.........

Sure but I'm not the one claiming that employers that let staff go are somehow distinct from those who fund the benefits for those staff while they're unemployed.

kippy

sharper wrote: »

Sure but I'm not the one claiming that employers that let staff go are somehow distinct from those who fund the benefits for those staff while they're unemployed.

Well they are different. They both pay PRSI etc but one is on the hook no matter how long your are out of work or what amount of PRSI has been paid on your behalf........ You still don't see that?

It would be similiar if the former private sector employer was going to pick up the ongoing tab in relation to redundancy payments, social welfare payments, associated social welfare payments, retraining and educational costs etc etc, but they don't (obviously), particularly if they fold - which many companies that have made people redundant have done, unfortunately.

You don't think that that thinking has to come into it somewhere?

sharper

kippy wrote: »

It would be similiar if the former private sector employer was going to pick up the ongoing tab in relation to redundancy payments, social welfare payments, associated social welfare payments, retraining and educational costs etc etc, but they don't (obviously), particularly if they fold - which many companies that have made people redundant have done, unfortunately.

The risk of unemployment of paid for an ongoing basis by all employers and employees. This is an entirely uncontroversial fact however much you want to try and paint it as private sector employers getting away with something or somehow pushing the cost onto a taxpayer which is distinct from themselves.

The cost of redundancy payments is met by employers even if they fold and have any assets left. Only in the circumstance where the business both fails completely and has absolutely nothing left does PRSI have to pay out for that.

The problem with this scheme is that it's yet more temporary measures for a fairly dubious saving in money. The government is simply not interested in fixing any problems and is happy to continually invoke temporary measures hoping things just sort of work themselves out a few years down the line.

kippy

sharper wrote: »

The risk of unemployment of paid for an ongoing basis by all employers and employees. This is an entirely uncontroversial fact however much you want to try and paint it as private sector employers getting away with something or somehow pushing the cost onto a taxpayer which is distinct from themselves.

The cost of redundancy payments is met by employers even if they fold and have any assets left. Only in the circumstance where the business both fails completely and has absolutely nothing left does PRSI have to pay out for that.

The problem with this scheme is that it's yet more temporary measures for a fairly dubious saving in money. The government is simply not interested in fixing any problems and is happy to continually invoke temporary measures hoping things just sort of work themselves out a few years down the line.

No one is "blaming" private sector companies or employees. That is just the reality of the figures.
Again, you don't seem to want to admit this in any way, shape or form. Do you think that the PRSI paid on behalf of employee will cover ALL of the costs associated with being out of work for an extended period of time?
Of course they won't.

I do agree with your last paragraph. It's a case of kicking the can down the road and not actually fixing anything.
But kicking the can down the road is the chosen solution of ANY government I have seen in the past twenty years in this and indeed many european countries. The voters don't seem to have an option to elect a party whose policies are to actually fix things.

maryishere

kippy wrote: »

No one is "blaming" private sector companies or employees.

Do not forget it is the tax which is collected and paid by private sector people which goes to the revenue commissioners, who pay the public sector. Many people - hundreds of thousands - can not even get the dole if their business dries up. None of the people in the private sector can get 3 years off @ 12,000 pay per year to bum around Oz or look after kids AND the guarantee of a job back in 3 years time. Yet they pick up the tab - yet again - to offer a perk to the public sector which they cannot get themselves.

Why do you think no other government or business offers people 36k to do nothing? The Irish government is right and everyone else is wrong?

skafish

RGS wrote: »

As usual logical arguments are ignored by the usual anti PS bias.
As the americans say do the math:

Dole €188 per week---€9776 per year. And on the usual additional extras, medical card, rent supplement and the total payment equals or exceeds the €12K per annum the HSE are offering on their scheme.

Example 10 staff in a section in the HSE each earn €50K per annum, total salary payment €500K. 2 people take the career break reduces the staff costs to 8X€50K=€400K plus 2X€12K=€24K €24K+€400k=€424K saving €76K per annum total saving over 3 years €218K.
Secondly the person on career break loses 3 years service for pension purposes thereby reducing the pension bill in the future.

In the Private sector companies lay off people and allow the Government(taxpayer) pick up the tab(dole)

In this case the employer and the government are one and the same therefore there is a saving to the state coffers.

And this is what or what i thought everyone wanted was a reduction in the PS pay bill.

As you so succinctly put it, some people can't see the logic and will just use this scheme as another excuse to bash the PS. But have you come to expect anything less?

skafish

maryishere wrote: »

There are plenty of people who would work for 12,000 a year because they get little or nothing on the dole - there are hundreds of thousands of self employed people who, despite paying tax all their lives, are not entitled to the dole if their business dries up for whatever reason. Some of them would take 12,000 a year for working, never mind 12,000 a year for not working with a guaranteed job and pension after 3 years!

Incorrect, yet again. Any self employed person is entitled to pay their full PRSI contributions as and when they work. Having done this, they are then entitled to full unemployment benefits, exactly the same as any other person who pays their PRSI. Hence the name... Pay related SOCIAL INSURANCE. ie insurance against ending up in a situation where their income disappears. The fact that many small business people, despite making good money in the boom times, chose not to pay this insurance is nobody's' fault but their own.
This doesn't mean I have no sympathy for people in this situation, by the way, just stating facts.

You should give it a try, some time.

But don't let the truth, or economic facts get in the way of your little anti PS rant

Larianne

skafish wrote: »

AFAIK the proposals state that the HSE will have the final say as to whether any application is successful or not. This being the case, it is unlikely front line staff such as nurses will be allowed to take up the offer. It seems to be aimed more at admin staff who can be redeployed elsewhere at the end of their 3 years

Physiotherapists have been offered this incentivised career break along with Dieticians. I'm guessing that goes for all allied health professionals. I've only spoken to people in the two professionals mentioned so I'm only presuming on the other healthcare professionals.

donalg1

maryishere wrote: »

...so the taxpayer pays for someone not to work as well as getting a replacement and paying them to work. We cannot afford that. No wonder the country is bust. The people taking the 3 years for 36k were already considering retiring to look after kids etc and now they are paid 36 k and given their dream job back after 3 years.

How do you know this?

Riskymove

maryishere wrote: »

None of the people in the private sector can get 3 years off @ 12,000 pay per year

you continue to avoid my earlier question so i can only assume you know that private sector does provide such schemes and are simply ignoring it.

mariaalice

Larianne wrote: »

Physiotherapists have been offered this incentivised career break along with Dieticians. I'm guessing that goes for all allied health professionals. I've only spoken to people in the two professionals mentioned so I'm only presuming on the other health care professionals.

I will get cross if that true how can they offer that to Physiotherapists when people are waiting for anointments to see them:(

I agree with it if it is being used properly to manage staffing in areas where the need to for staff changes over time.

If the above is true it really is just a short term kick the can down the road idea.

sharper

Riskymove wrote: »

you continue to avoid my earlier question so i can only assume you know that private sector does provide such schemes and are simply ignoring it.

Where are you expecting to find national statistics on whether private employers provide incentivised career breaks or not?

Riskymove

sharper wrote: »

Where are you expecting to find national statistics on whether private employers provide incentivised career breaks or not?

who needs national statistics

you'll find plenty of info on google about the firms who promote paid sabbaticals for various reasons

there's one CNN report showing that 25% of the Fortune 100 firms do it as an example

Permanent TSB also introduced a similar incentivised scheme here back in 2008


of course, its far easier to do no research and just say "no other government or private sector firm" would do it, over and over again

lazeedaisy

The scheme is open to ALL HSE STAFF -

You apply online, the decision is not made locally - its made by the big wigs in the HSE - your line manager, nor their line manager has a say in it.

The closing date is 31st May to apply - once the applications are made - the regional manager then makes decisions, where you work will not find out even at this stage if you have applied for it, unless the RDO mentions it - but it is unlikely

It is open for all, the consensus is, a lot of the younger mothers paying a fortune for creche will take up the offer, it is not aimed at anyone retiring within next 5 years,

maryishere

Riskymove wrote: »

you continue to avoid my earlier question so i can only assume you know that private sector does provide such schemes and are simply ignoring it.

It was answered already. Can you find a single business or person in the private sector who can get 3 years off @ 12,000 pay per year, with the guarantee of their job back at the end of the 3 years?

I know TSB tried it a number of years ago, but found it did not work out. No surprise there - that bank made some dreadful decisions and had to get rescued by the taxpayer - its now only virtually a public service company, funded by the taxpayer, like the public service.

Why do you think no government offers its employees 36k to do nothing for 3 years? Why do you choose not to answer that? And do you not agree that the public service must in general, as a whole be overstaffed and underworked if lots of people can leave like that, without being replaced?

mariaalice

Yes, but how do you square the circle there is an almost complete ban on recruitment in to the HSE and bodies funded by the HSE ( I know there has been some very limited recruitment ) so in a situation where there is little or no recruitment but there is a demand for the services how can staff with direct client contact i.e nurses or physiotherapists be give this incentives careerer brake?

donalg1

maryishere wrote: »

It was answered already. Can you find a single business or person in the private sector who can get 3 years off @ 12,000 pay per year, with the guarantee of their job back at the end of the 3 years?

I know TSB tried it a number of years ago, but found it did not work out. No surprise there - that bank made some dreadful decisions and had to get rescued by the taxpayer - its now only virtually a public service company, funded by the taxpayer, like the public service.

Why do you think no government offers its employees 36k to do nothing for 3 years? Why do you choose not to answer that? And do you not agree that the public service must in general, as a whole be overstaffed and underworked if lots of people can leave like that, without being replaced?

Lots of people leaving now? Have you figures on the amount of people taking this up then, you seem to know that all those taking it up were thinking of retiring but will now do this instead so maybe you can get the figures from the same place you got that information from (plucked from thin air).

donalg1

mariaalice wrote: »

Yes, but how do you square the circle there is an almost complete ban on recruitment in to the HSE and bodies funded by the HSC ( I know there has been some very limited recruitment ) so in a situation where there is little or no recruitment but there is a demand for the services how can staff with direct client contact i.e nurses or physiotherapists be give this incentives careerer brake?

I assume if all the physiotherapists in one department decided they want to take the offer up and go for 3 years they wouldnt all be allowed do this if someone is not there to replace them. Whoever decides to grant or refuse the application will have a level of discretion.

Similiar to early retirement such as that in the Defence Forces, (Egan v Minister for Defence [1988] ) for example.

sharper

Riskymove wrote: »

there's one CNN report showing that 25% of the Fortune 100 firms do it as an example

If you mean this article then you've misinterpreted it, it's 25% of the top 100 best firms to work for which rather supports the point such perks are extremely uncommon http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/2012/benefits/sabbaticals.html

Permanent TSB also introduced a similar incentivised scheme here back in 2008

The same Permanent TSB that doesn't care about market forces because it's propped up by the government.

Riskymove

sharper wrote: »

extremely uncommon

"extremely uncommon" is not the same as "noone else"

The same Permanent TSB that doesn't care about market forces because it's propped up by the government.

it wasn't at the time

Why do you think no government offers its employees 36k to do nothing for 3 years?

probably because its a silly, short term idea rather than tackling the problem

And do you not agree that the public service must in general, as a whole be overstaffed and underworked if lots of people can leave like that, without being replaced?

No I don't agree

maybe certain parts are but in most cases the reduciton in pay cost is the aim not the protection of services

sharper

Riskymove wrote: »

it wasn't at the time

For the purpose of productive discussion I think a certain degree of generosity is needed to understand a point someone is trying to make and take it on board. The most literal interpretation is not always the most reflective or useful, you can interpret the statement in one of two ways:

1. Nobody anywhere has ever or is ever getting a paid career break except the Irish public sector.

2. In Ireland, outside of the public sector paid career breaks are so uncommon as to be effectively non-existent and unavailable to the vast majority of workers who are

Otherwise the discussion is just quibbling about "none" or "most" or whether we're talking about Ireland or globally or whatever.

it wasn't at the time

It was at the time. The paid career break was announced in November 2008. The infamous bank bailout which put the taxpayer on the hook for the liabilities of Irish banks was in September 2008.

Riskymove

sharper wrote: »

Otherwise the discussion is just quibbling about "none" or "most" or whether we're talking about Ireland or globally or whatever.

I have already made comments on the scheme

my point in this instance was specifically about the idea that "noone else" - no Government or Private Sector firm did this kind of thing

If this was actually the case I think that would be an important piece of info in the discussion

mariaalice

People need to get over the who in the private sector offer this, it a relative minor point and is often motivated by a resentment of people working in the public services.

The important point is...is this a good cost effective way of manging peaks of staffing in the public services or is a kick the can down the road type of response. If staff are not needed then they should be offered redeployment or made redundant, but if the need changes up and down possibly dependent on various ideas the government bring in, then it is a good idea

Kristopherus

Jasper79 wrote: »

Hi,

So my sister works in the HSE and they'e been offered a 3 year Paid career break.

Apparently they've to apply by end of May, will be approved by Mid June and should commence by 1st July.

While on the career break staff will be paid 1/3 of salary capped at 12k per annum.

A Colleagues wife is a nurse in the hse and she will taking it as after they've calculated creche fees/tax credits etc as a couple they will only be down 200euro per month.

My Thoughts though is, is this just a scheme by the government to claim that they've reduced the pay bill by so much? while just pushing out the salary payments by the 3 years? I don't see why else would offer this, as I don't believe they will replace the staff that take the break, hence just increasing backlogs and poorer service provided.

Also not sure I've seen this reported in the media either ?

Any thoughts to the benefits for this scheme ?

OP, you are 4 years out of date:D. This scheme was introduced by the Govt in 2009 together with an incentivised early retirement scheme and a shorter working year scheme. These schemes have been largely forgotten about as newer schemes were rolled out. In the HSE, the Paid Career Scheme was practically ignored by HSE staff as the conditions attached to it were considered too onerous. There was aslo an issue of where you would be working after the 3 years. There was no certainty that you would be working in the same location. You could be re-assigned anywhere within a 40km radius.

I'm not sure if this version of the scheme has been watered down in an effort to attract more takers.

EDIT: All the details are here http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/focus/icb2013.623999.shortcut.html

Godge

mariaalice wrote: »

People need to get over the who in the private sector offer this, it a relative minor point and is often motivated by a resentment of people working in the public services.

The important point is...is this a good cost effective way of manging peaks of staffing in the public services or is a kick the can down the road type of response. If staff are not needed then they should be offered redeployment or made redundant, but if the need changes up and down possibly dependent on various ideas the government bring in, then it is a good idea

Paid sabbaticals are the norm across higher education institutions all over the world.

In Belgium the government pays for private sector career breaks

http://euforus.blogspot.ie/2009/05/how-to-take-career-break-and-get-paid.html

I think the most relevant point being made is that certain posters come on here and have a post along the following lines:

"Look at the latest disgraceful behaviour in the public service that would not be allowed anywhere else in the world"

A rational poster comes along and points with a link to examples of where the same practice happens elsewhere.

The first poster comes back with something like:

"Just because it happens in Belgium, doesn't mean it can happen here, our country is broke, our public servants should be paid peanuts."

There is no acknowledgement that the original statement was untrue, grossly exaggerated or misleading. Instead the goalposts shift. Hyperbole and ranting become accepted modes of debate. If someone points out that maybe raising taxes is a different option, the irrational will respond with

"You can't raise taxes, we have taken too much."

Even when it is conclusively shown that taxes in Ireland are lower than elsewhere, especially on the lower-paid and on property, we are told because (some) people have taken out high mortgages, it would be unfair. It really is bizarre.

Finally, has anyone noticed that the new Croke Park Agreement has been published and what do you think?

sharper

Godge wrote: »

Paid sabbaticals are the norm across higher education institutions all over the world.

Higher institutions are typically protected sectors that offer extremely unusual perks like a job you explicitly cannot be fired from for almost any reason (tenure) in exchange for various things like the job being extremely difficult to get in the first place.

In Belgium the government pays for private sector career breaks

http://euforus.blogspot.ie/2009/05/how-to-take-career-break-and-get-paid.html

As pointed out in your own source that because it's extremely difficult to lose your job in the first place.

There is no acknowledgement that the original statement was untrue, grossly exaggerated or misleading.

Any reasonable interpretation of the statement would not be misleading. All the attempts so far to refute it have ended up actually reinforcing it by showing that it's highly unusual even among the very best organisations to work for and is largely a feature of government protected sectors.

As per usual in these discussions there's an obstinate refusal to take the fairly obvious point that people without these protections are asked to pay for those that do. It represents a fundamental unfairness in policy which is defended to the ends of the Earth by those that benefit from it.

Godge

sharper wrote: »

Higher institutions are typically protected sectors that offer extremely unusual perks like a job you explicitly cannot be fired from for almost any reason (tenure) in exchange for various things like the job being extremely difficult to get in the first place.



As pointed out in your own source that because it's extremely difficult to lose your job in the first place.



Any reasonable interpretation of the statement would not be misleading. All the attempts so far to refute it have ended up actually reinforcing it by showing that it's highly unusual even among the very best organisations to work for and is largely a feature of government protected sectors.

As per usual in these discussions there's an obstinate refusal to take the fairly obvious point that people without these protections are asked to pay for those that do. It represents a fundamental unfairness in policy which is defended to the ends of the Earth by those that benefit from it.

you miss the point I was making by a garden mile.

Someone on a rant says "Nobody else in the world gets a paid career break, why should public servants in Ireland be so privilieged getting paid to work for nothing"

Instead they should reasonably say "Paid career breaks are a rare privilege. What are the reasons for their introduction in Ireland and will they help in reducing the budget deficit?"

That sort of rational debate could lead one to say in response "As pointed out in your own source that because it's extremely difficult to lose your job in the first place" so it's the best way of getting costs down. Now who said that bit in quotes? Are we in agreement?

sharper

Godge wrote: »

Someone on a rant says "Nobody else in the world gets a paid career break, why should public servants in Ireland be so privilieged getting paid to work for nothing"

Instead they should reasonably say "Paid career breaks are a rare privilege. What are the reasons for their introduction in Ireland and will they help in reducing the budget deficit?"

And the point I'm making is not the most literal interpretation is not the most reasonable. There are now multiple posts arguing against the most literal possible interpretation when any reasonable reader would have read it as your second option in the first place.

Godge

sharper wrote: »

And the point I'm making is not the most literal interpretation is not the most reasonable. There are now multiple posts arguing against the most literal possible interpretation when any reasonable reader would have read it as your second option in the first place.

Yes, but when the first option is unreasonable, provocative, irrational or over-exaggerated (or some or all of the above), are you surprised that the reactive posts take a literal interpretation in order to disprove it?

sharper

Godge wrote: »

Yes, but when the first option is unreasonable, provocative, irrational or over-exaggerated (or some or all of the above), are you surprised that the reactive posts take a literal interpretation in order to disprove it?

Yes I am surprised because it derails the discussion. If someone is being unreasonable,provocative and irrational there are basically two options in the context of a discussion

1. The person is inherently unreasonable, provocative and irrational (not uncommon on the internet).

2. The topic under discussion causes the person to write in an unreasonable and provocative manner but for rational reasons they have stated.

In the case of #2 responding in a similar manner simply derails from the rational point.

The basic case that is being made here is that paid career breaks is another perk for a very well protected sector of Irish society. This has to be paid for by another sector that lacks those protections.

Additionally this is yet another temporary savings which does exactly zero to improve the efficiency with which the Irish public sector delivers services.

maryishere

A sabbatical is a period of time you take away from employment, supposedly to learn something. Paying a bored, underworked public servant in admin or whatever €36,000 from borrowed money - when we are already borrowing 1.5 billion euro a month - to do nothing for 3 years ( except go on the tear around Oz or look after kids ) may be money from heaven as far as the employee is concerned, but the country is badly enough off already. If someone wants to retire to look after kids, or enjoy the craic abroad, let them retire with their pension ( in due course ), without giving them €36,000, their job back in 3 years, and then a pension. Thats all we can afford.

Godge

maryishere wrote: »

A sabbatical is a period of time you take away from employment, supposedly to learn something. Paying a bored, underworked public servant in admin or whatever €36,000 from borrowed money - when we are already borrowing 1.5 billion euro a month - to do nothing for 3 years ( except go on the tear around Oz or look after kids ) may be money from heaven as far as the employee is concerned, but the country is badly enough off already. If someone wants to retire to look after kids, or enjoy the craic abroad, let them retire with their pension ( in due course ), without giving them €36,000, their job back in 3 years, and then a pension. Thats all we can afford.

Universities offer paid sabbaticals, fully paid for going off and doing something, not necessarily study but not work.

sharper wrote: »

The basic case that is being made here is that paid career breaks is another perk for a very well protected sector of Irish society. This has to be paid for by another sector that lacks those protections.

Additionally this is yet another temporary savings which does exactly zero to improve the efficiency with which the Irish public sector delivers services.

It is still a saving and a real saving at that not an imagined one from some productivity measure.

That saving means that the perk of low income taxes for all employees can be protected.

sharper

Godge wrote: »

It is still a saving and a real saving at that not an imagined one from some productivity measure.

It is a saving which ignores the underlying causes of the problems we're facing.

That saving means that the perk of low income taxes for all employees can be protected.

Deciding how much you pay for something is not a "perk" it's how democracies and markets work. The tax level is not an entitlement bestowed upon the masses by a benevolent public service no matter how much you appear to wish that to be the case.

ucdperson

Universities offer paid sabbaticals, fully paid for going off and doing something, not necessarily study but not work.

Universities offer paid sabbaticals, for going off and doing research, which is most definitely work. It may be work conducted off site, but it directly advances the interests of its employers nevertheless.

HSE breaks do not expect the employee to do anything for the employer. These are more akin to private sector initiatives that aim to keep good staff even if they cannot be afforded in the short term.

creedp

sharper wrote: »

It is a saving.

I agree

Deciding how much you pay for something is not a "perk" it's how democracies and markets work. The tax level is not an entitlement bestowed upon the masses by a benevolent public service no matter how much you appear to wish that to be the case.

Don't really understand this point .. maybe someone else might disentangle it for me. Govt's set tax rates, I don't think that point is being argued. However, I think its a fair point that savings, no matter what their source, in public expenditure will enable the Govt to maintain lower levels of taxation that would otherwise be the case.

creedp

ucdperson wrote: »

HSE breaks do not expect the employee to do anything for the employer. These are more akin to private sector initiatives that aim to keep good staff even if they cannot be afforded in the short term.

The HSE/State is effectively offering unemployment assistance for a period of 3 years to staff and will re-employ then after this period in an area where their services will be needed. Luckily they won't have to pay out any voluntary redundancy for the employees to accept unemployment assistance for this period. Both sides win as staff won't volunteer unless the arrangement suits them but the employer/State most definitely makes a saving over the 3 year period. Dress it up anyway you want after that and invoke scenes of anguish as felt necessary to continue with an empty argument.

After all this thread has to attempt to compete with the CP thread

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

The HSE/State is effectively offering unemployment assistance for a period of 3 years to staff and will re-employ then after this period in an area where their services will be needed. Luckily they won't have to pay out any voluntary redundancy for the employees to accept unemployment assistance for this period. Both sides win as staff won't volunteer unless the arrangement suits them but the employer/State most definitely makes a saving over the 3 year period. Dress it up anyway you want after that and invoke scenes of anguish as felt necessary to continue with an empty argument.

After all this thread has to attempt to compete with the CP thread

Its not unemployment assistance as if the person gets a job during the three years they still get paid, unlike unemployment assistance which ceases after a person stops being unemployed.

This thread has being going on longer than the corporate tax thread and has less than half as many posts, never mind the CP thread.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

Its not unemployment assistance as if the person gets a job during the three years they still get paid, unlike unemployment assistance which ceases after a person stops being unemployed.

.

Can people ever get the facts right?

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/QAcareerbreak.pdf


"Q. Can I take up a job in the State while on a career break?
A. No. As stated above a career break can be allowed for family reasons, other domestic purposes (e.g. care of a relative), travel abroad, self-employment and educational purposes"


Similar but broader (but much lesser paid) than a paid university sabbatical

Riskymove

Godge wrote: »

Can people ever get the facts right?

In fairness a person could become self-employed or work abroad

indeed just recently the T&C have changed allowing private sector employment on career break - however, this may not apply to incentivised scheme

creedp

Riskymove wrote: »

In fairness a person could become self-employed or work abroad

And this couldn't happen if a person is on unemployment assistance

Riskymove

creedp wrote: »

And this couldn't happen if a person is on unemployment assistance

well i am sure people try it but it is not allowed afaik

creedp

Riskymove wrote: »

well i am sure people try it but it is not allowed afaik

You are correct on both counts afaik. My linking of the 2 together was simply to make the point that if the Govt/employer want to reduce headcount in the shortterm but doesn't want to pay out voluntary/compulsory redundancy this represents a viable alternative. Govt/employer reduces headcount for a period of 3 years and it doesn't cost much more than it would to pay out unemployment benefit/assistance for that period while avoiding the cost of redundancy payments. At the end of the 3 year period, natural wastage will have resulted in shortages in certain areas and where possible these people can be redeployed to these areas.

sarumite

Riskymove wrote: »

In fairness a person could become self-employed or work abroad

indeed just recently the T&C have changed allowing private sector employment on career break - however, this may not apply to incentivised scheme

According to the details of the program (http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Benefits_Services/careerbreak/icb.pdf)

"17. If it comes to the attention of the HSE that an employee has taken up employment, or is
otherwise engaged in activity during his/her ICB, which is inconsistent with, or may cause a
conflict of interest with, his/her position in the organisation, the HSE will contact the employee
in writing, stating that the employee must, within two weeks, either:

cease that employment or stop engaging in that activity and advise the employer in writing
that s/he has so done, or

advise the employer in writing that s/he is not engaged in that employment or that s/he is not
engaged in that activity or

if s/he is engaged in that activity, advise the employer of the reasons why the activity is not inconsistent with, or does not cause a conflict of interest with, his/her position in the organisation."

The emboldened point would suggest that employment within the state is possible as long as it doesn't conflict with your role within the HSE etc (I would imagine for example you couldn't take up work for a medical supply company)

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

According to the details of the program (http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Benefits_Services/careerbreak/icb.pdf)

"17. If it comes to the attention of the HSE that an employee has taken up employment, or is
otherwise engaged in activity during his/her ICB, which is inconsistent with, or may cause a
conflict of interest with, his/her position in the organisation, the HSE will contact the employee
in writing, stating that the employee must, within two weeks, either:

cease that employment or stop engaging in that activity and advise the employer in writing
that s/he has so done, or

advise the employer in writing that s/he is not engaged in that employment or that s/he is not
engaged in that activity or

if s/he is engaged in that activity, advise the employer of the reasons why the activity is not inconsistent with, or does not cause a conflict of interest with, his/her position in the organisation."

The emboldened point would suggest that employment within the state is possible as long as it doesn't conflict with your role within the HSE etc (I would imagine for example you couldn't take up work for a medical supply company)

The emboldened bit would suggest that a person must not engage in employment while on this incentivised career break.

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

The emboldened bit would suggest that a person must not engage in employment while on this incentivised career break.

I guess it depends on what the HSE means by "activity".

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

I guess it depends on what the HSE means by "activity".

As usual the devil in the the detail and I'm sure some enterprising [some people would probably consider his an oxymoron!] PS will take the package and engage in activity that generates an income for themselves. Human nature and all that ...

maryishere

creedp wrote: »

Govt/employer reduces headcount for a period of 3 years.

I think everyone is agreed the public service in general is overstaffed and underworked, so that is a good idea

creedp wrote: »

and it doesn't cost much more than it would to pay out unemployment benefit/assistance for that period .

???
If someone is, for example married with kids, and wants to give up their public sector job for lifestyle reasons, to spend time with kids etc, and if this " paid career break " scheme did not exist, .........what " unemployment benefit/assistance " would she ( or he ) be entitled to if any, assuming their spouse is working in a well paid job?

I would have thought that if a married person gave up a job and did not seek another, and wanted to eg look after their kids or go to Oz for 3 years, they would not get 36k in unemployment benefits over 3 years?

sharper

maryishere wrote: »

If someone is, for example married with kids, and wants to give up their public sector job for lifestyle reasons, to spend time with kids etc, and if this " paid career break " scheme did not exist, .........what " unemployment benefit/assistance " would she ( or he ) be entitled to if any, assuming their spouse is working in a well paid job?

If people were just getting paid what they would have anyway then there'd be no need for the incentive at all.

It's quite obvious the point of the incentive is to get something you otherwise would not have therefore the argument "we'd be paying it anyway" isn't valid.

maryishere

My question is as follows: If someone is, for example married with kids, and wants to give up their public sector job for lifestyle reasons, to spend time with kids etc,or go to Australia for 3 years, and if this " paid career break " scheme did not exist, .........how much " unemployment benefit/assistance " would she ( or he ) be entitled to if any, assuming their spouse is working in a well paid job?

Celticfire

maryishere wrote: »

What got me thinking was when my sister in law got off for 3 years , and got €12,000 a year for her time off. Before she took the time off for 3 years, she was considering giving up work to look after her kids and have a better lifestyle. Then she was offered 12k a year not to work, and the guarantee of work at the end of the 3 years. Money from heaven she called it.
Her husband and any of the other siblings cannot get this perk - they all work in the private sector / or have had to emigrate.

Hello, Jimmy, Ginio,, you always seem to know a person to suit your agenda. Do you not get tired re-registering again and again?