HSE Paid Career Breaks

Godge

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)

sarumite wrote: »

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

I guess it also depends on whether one understands English.

The first sentence has a reference to two actions:

- taking up employment
- engaged in activity, which is inconsistent with......

The second and third clauses both mention employment and activity.

The final clause, which is the one people are jumping on, only refers to activity. Therefore it is clear that it is only possible to justify an activity as being consistent or not a conflict of interest. Nowhere in that paragraph it is allowed to justify employment. The only option available if you take up employment is to cease it.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

I guess it also depends on whether one understands English.

I read post#89 and wondered if the reason you contradicted yourself was for the above same reasons.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

I read post#89 and wondered if the reason you contradicted yourself was for the above same reasons.

I do not understand

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.

.

The reference in bold to which I was replying clearly states "if the person gets a job". It does not state if the person moves abroad or if the person becomes self-employed.

Godge wrote: »

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

Can there be any clearer answer than "No"?

Mr. teddywinkles

skafish wrote: »

It seems that you are confusing your sister with the rest of the HSE staff. Boards.ie is full of posts about reducing the number of staff in the PS. Here is an example of one section actively doing something to reduce numbers, at a rate that costs the government less than compulsory redundancy, and all you can do is pick holes.

Its very simple; if the HSE decided to sack a number of staff (if compulsory redundancy were allowed), the people thus fired would be entitled to severance pay, the dole and various other social welfare payments. Depending on their circumstances, this will probably amount to a hell of a lot more than €36 000 over three years.
In addition, the said HSE get to reemploy the fully trained staff again in three years time, when, hopefully, things will be better.
When these staff are reinstated, and, under the deal, there is no guarantee they will get their old job back, just a job at the same grade, they can be re deployed to where they are most needed. Without three years increments and pension benifits.

Some people can never be happy

redundancy = career break?
But can you not still work within them 3 years. Thats not like being on the dole at all

skafish

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

redundancy = career break?
But can you not still work within them 3 years. Thats not like being on the dole at all

I don't understand the question. I stated the ICB will cost a lot less than compulsory redundancy, not that they are the same.

With regard to working, see posts above

skafish

maryishere wrote: »

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

Who is agreed? You and ............ well who exactly? Maybe you should check your facts before making sweeping statements.
I know a lot of people in the PS, not one of them underworked.

But lets' not let the truth get in the way of a good old uninformed rant

skafish

maryishere wrote: »

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?

Simple: €188 per week, a total of €29429.52. Any citizen of the European Union who is looking for work is entitled to basic dole, regardless of spousal existence or pecuniary circumstance.
Some applicants may be entitled to additional benefits such as rent allowance, fuel allowance etc.

So this proposal will cost, at most an additional €6570.48 per year, per person, or €19711.44 in total.
Of course that does not include statuary redundancy payments that would apply in the private sector, payable at a minimum rate of two weeks salary per year of service.

eass82

skafish wrote: »

Simple: €188 per week, a total of €29429.52. Any citizen of the European Union who is looking for work is entitled to basic dole, regardless of spousal existence or pecuniary circumstance.
Some applicants may be entitled to additional benefits such as rent allowance, fuel allowance etc.

So this proposal will cost, at most an additional €6570.48 per year, per person, or €19711.44 in total.
Of course that does not include statuary redundancy payments that would apply in the private sector, payable at a minimum rate of two weeks salary per year of service.

Irrelevent - paying people to be unproductive by taking a career break(or retire early as was the case recently) is not comparable to paying people who are looking for work. People on career breaks have left the labour force and are literally getting 'money for nothing' as opposed to those people on jobseekers who we can at least hope are genuinely looking for work.

If the govt want to save a few €'s the most rational way is to maintain employment levels at slightly lower levels of pay.

Vizzy

skafish wrote: »

Simple: €188 per week, a total of €29429.52. Any citizen of the European Union who is looking for work is entitled to basic dole, regardless of spousal existence or pecuniary circumstance.
Some applicants may be entitled to additional benefits such as rent allowance, fuel allowance etc.

So this proposal will cost, at most an additional €6570.48 per year, per person, or €19711.44 in total.
Of course that does not include statuary redundancy payments that would apply in the private sector, payable at a minimum rate of two weeks salary per year of service.

Actually it will only cost 1/3rd of this !!(188 per week by 52 weeks is €9809 multiplied by 3 is €29,428 versus €36,000)

And as you have said previously on numerous occasions,if you add the cost of a redundancy package in to the equation,the career break proposal will actually save money.

maryishere

skafish wrote: »

Simple: €188 per week, a total of €29429.52. Any citizen of the European Union who is looking for work is entitled to basic dole, regardless of spousal existence or pecuniary circumstance.

rubbish. there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands , of people in this country who are not entitled to €188 per week. Ask any self employed person who has paid tax all their life but whose business has dried up.

The phrase "who is looking for work " is also relevant. Someone who wants to take a career break or retire from work in order to look after children, aged relatives, go around Oz for 3 years or whatever is not "looking for work" and should not get 188 per week.

maryishere

skafish wrote: »

I know a lot of people in the PS, not one of them underworked.

depends on the area of the public sector. There are some people in some departments who are surplus to requirements ; otherwise the government would not have introduced the scheme, with the unions blessing.

Odysseus

My understanding is that I took this offer I could focus on my private practice for those three years, what I cannot do is work for another state agency, or any other body where I could use my knowledge of the HSE to enhance the work that body may do for the HSE.

If that makes sense.

Say I worked in procurement, I could not use my knowledge of how the HSE gives out it tenders, to help my new employer develop their business with the HSE. However, as my private work is not based upon any contacts from the HSE and any use of inside information, I could if I applied and was accepted for the career break focus on my private practice, teaching and research work if I wanted.

I top up my HSE wages with private work, well I have since the various cuts; however, I would rather keep my private work to a minimum for the time being as I prefer the work I do with my HSE clients who could not afford my private rates. So I have decided not to go for this offer, well not this time. Maybe in the future, I don’t know, but having giving it some thought it does not suit me. It also would not suit the people I work along side as our team is already very shorthanded and this in turn means it is even harder for the people who need our service to access it.

rumour

skafish wrote: »

No you are right. And, strange as it seems, it is actually a good idea that makes economic sence.

No it is not a good idea.......paying people to do nothing when your broke is nothing short of madness.

Jawgap

If the HSE can accommodate staff going on extended breaks, then surely the staff in question are actually redundant?

kippy

rumour wrote: »

No it is not a good idea.......paying people to do nothing when your broke is nothing short of madness.

Would you prefer if me or you told the 400 odd thousand on social welfare this?

kippy

Jawgap wrote: »

If the HSE can accommodate staff going on extended breaks, then surely the staff in question are actually redundant?

You do realise the HSE cannot make anyone "redundant" at present?

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

depends on the area of the public sector. There are some people in some departments who are surplus to requirements ; otherwise the government would not have introduced the scheme, with the unions blessing.

There are and there aren't.
The state needs to save money, that doesn't mean there are people "surplus to requirements".

sean200

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So let me get this right were paying someone to do nothing for 3 years.
Please correct me if im wrong?

did PTSB not do the same??

maryishere

kippy wrote: »

Would you prefer if me or you told the 400 odd thousand on social welfare this?

not relevant. Giving unemployment / dole to feed and clothe people seeking work is different to giving 36 k to those who di not want to seek paid work for 3 years and instead collect the kids from school in their 4x4, bum across Australia or whatever.

kippy wrote: »

The state needs to save money, that doesn't mean there are people "surplus to requirements".

If the government wishes to shed staff then the public service in general must be overpaid and underworked.

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

not relevant. Giving unemployment / dole to feed and clothe people seeking work is different to giving 36 k to those who di not want to seek paid work for 3 years and instead collect the kids from school in their 4x4, bum across Australia or whatever.




If the government wishes to shed staff then the public service in general must be overpaid and underworked.

It's a lot more relevant than you'd admit, it just doesnt suit your arguments.

Are you suggesting that all public servants have kids, own a 4*4 and are planning to "bum across australlia"?

Again, the logic involved in your second paragraph doesnt make any sense.
As I have stated, it's about saving money, not anything else.

maryishere

sean200 wrote: »

did PTSB not do the same??

And look at the mess they ended up in , costing the taxpayer !
They found, unsurprisingly, it did not work and do not offer it anymore.

kippy wrote: »

As I have stated, it's about saving money, not anything else.

Yeah, the recipient of the 36k saving money at the taxpayers expense- no big surprise there. That's why nobody else in Ireland offers such a ludicrous scheme. Ah well, whats a few extra hundred million.

Jawgap

kippy wrote: »

You do realise the HSE cannot make anyone "redundant" at present?

Yes, I'm just highlighting the complete absence of a proper mechanism for configuring the workforce to meet service demand. The fact paid career breaks are even being discussed just shows how bad the HSE are at even basic service planning.

kippy

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I'm just highlighting the complete absence of a proper mechanism for configuring the workforce to meet service demand. The fact paid career breaks are even being discussed just shows how bad the HSE are at even basic service planning.

The fact that the HSE cannot make people redundant, is not actually the fault of the HSE.

It's also hard to blame any employees taking a paid career break if it suits them.

Ultimately if the state puts pressure on it's organisations to save money in a short period of time, without giving them the tools to do it, other methods of "reducing" headcount and cost MUST be used. One, and only one of these methods is a paid career break, which ultimately costs the state less than a redundancy (in general).

If the HSE are to operate efficiently they need to have a flexible and fluid workforce on the front line and have the physical locations that are capable of handling a flexible and fluid demand for services. They have neither at the moment, and I don't disagree with that point.

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

And look at the mess they ended up in , costing the taxpayer !
They found, unsurprisingly, it did not work and do not offer it anymore.


Yeah, the recipient of the 36k saving money at the taxpayers expense- no big surprise there. That's why nobody else in Ireland offers such a ludicrous scheme. Ah well, whats a few extra hundred million.

How many times do you have to be told that, despite your consistent protests, this scheme generally SAVES the taxpayer money over the other options which include redundancy.
Redundancy schemes would work out far higher............
Ultimately when the state requires that worker in the future in a different area, then that is where the staff member starts back.

Would you really prefer a redundancy payment, covering the cost of that persons social welfare and educational costs until they got "re-employed"?

Jawgap

kippy wrote: »

The fact that the HSE cannot make people redundant, is not actually the fault of the HSE.

It's also hard to blame any employees taking a paid career break if it suits them.

Ultimately if the state puts pressure on it's organisations to save money in a short period of time, without giving them the tools to do it, other methods of "reducing" headcount and cost MUST be used. One, and only one of these methods is a paid career break, which ultimately costs the state less than a redundancy (in general).

If the HSE are to operate efficiently they need to have a flexible and fluid workforce on the front line and have the physical locations that are capable of handling a flexible and fluid demand for services. They have neither at the moment, and I don't disagree with that point.

It is the fault of the HSE- I've yet to hear senior management in the HSE advocate for a fair and proper redundancy scheme (or any other kind for that matter). Could it be that any such scheme, properly deployed would immediately target managers for removal?

You're right about the employees, they are just living by the rules and I wouldn't blame or criticise anyone for taking a paid career break if the option is there.

I agree wholeheartedly that well paid, frontline staff are needed in the HSE and in another post in a different thread I advocated that some of the money saved should be ploughed back into recruiting additional clinical and allied support staff - my main issue is with the bloated administration and management in the organisation.

In it's current form the HSE is not fit for purpose; there's no accountability (especially for the management); and senior executives are more concerned with process and procedure than delivering a first world standard of care.

By way of anecdotal evidence.......the renal unit I brought someone to recently had 7 staff working away there - 2 nurses, 3 admin and a couple of doctors (who were in and out over the course of the session). The nurses were on the go constantly, I'll assume the doctors, when they weren't zipping between attendees, were off elsewhere dealing with other patients - the 3 admin were gossiping away. In the three hours I was there, between them they did maybe 30 mins work - better to get rid of two of them and add an extra nurse.

maryishere

kippy wrote: »

How many times do you have to be told that, despite your consistent protests, this scheme generally SAVES the taxpayer money..

It has actually cost a few hundred million so far....no wonder public service pay is costing the country so much more than even 8 or 10 years years ago.

How many times do you have to be reminded no other government has a hair-brained scheme to pay employees for not working?

Its another case of our government being geniuses when it comes to economic matters and everyone else being wrong again?:D
I thought that sort of arrogance died with the celtic tiger. Lets call it what it it : a nice perk for those in the public sector who wish to avail of it. Its at the taxpayers expense of course. No firm in the private sector in Ireland could afford to offer such a scheme, even if it wanted to. It would be difficult to motivate people left behind to work hard when workers knew the same organisation was paying people not to work.

kippy wrote: »

Would you really prefer a redundancy payment...

there is no question of redundancy payments. The people who were thinking of taking a break for a few years to go on an extended holiday, look after kids or whatever sometimes voluntarily leave work : this is how it works in other organisations...there is always natural wastage , people leaving.

Jawgap wrote: »

You're right about the employees, they are just living by the rules and I wouldn't blame or criticise anyone for taking a paid career break if the option is there.

+1.

kippy

Jawgap wrote: »

It is the fault of the HSE- I've yet to hear senior management in the HSE advocate for a fair and proper redundancy scheme (or any other kind for that matter). Could it be that any such scheme, properly deployed would immediately target managers for removal?

You're right about the employees, they are just living by the rules and I wouldn't blame or criticise anyone for taking a paid career break if the option is there.

I agree wholeheartedly that well paid, frontline staff are needed in the HSE and in another post in a different thread I advocated that some of the money saved should be ploughed back into recruiting additional clinical and allied support staff - my main issue is with the bloated administration and management in the organisation.

In it's current form the HSE is not fit for purpose; there's no accountability (especially for the management); and senior executives are more concerned with process and procedure than delivering a first world standard of care.

By way of anecdotal evidence.......the renal unit I brought someone to recently had 7 staff working away there - 2 nurses, 3 admin and a couple of doctors (who were in and out over the course of the session). The nurses were on the go constantly, I'll assume the doctors, when they weren't zipping between attendees, were off elsewhere dealing with other patients - the 3 admin were gossiping away. In the three hours I was there, between them they did maybe 30 mins work - better to get rid of two of them and add an extra nurse.

Eh, it's not the fault of the HSE that they CANNOT make a person redundant without their permission.......compulsory redundancy is not an option.

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

It has actually cost a few hundred million so far....no wonder public service pay is costing the country so much more than even 8 or 10 years years ago.

How many times do you have to be reminded no other government has a hair-brained scheme to pay employees for not working?

Its another case of our government being geniuses when it comes to economic matters and everyone else being wrong again?:D
I thought that sort of arrogance died with the celtic tiger. Lets call it what it it : a nice perk for those in the public sector who wish to avail of it. Its at the taxpayers expense of course. No firm in the private sector in Ireland could afford to offer such a scheme, even if it wanted to. It would be difficult to motivate people left behind to work hard when workers knew the same organisation was paying people not to work.



there is no question of redundancy payments. The people who were thinking of taking a break for a few years to go on an extended holiday, look after kids or whatever sometimes voluntarily leave work : this is how it works in other organisations...there is always natural wastage , people leaving.



+1.

Can I see some evidence for the piece in bold please?

Actually can I see some evidence of the "millions" spent on this scheme already?


The "perk" is not there for those that "wish" to avail of it - again you fail to see this despite it being pointed out to you many times on this very thread...........

As I said earlier, people get paid "not to work" all the time - the cheaper this is for the state, the better, surely?

Jawgap

kippy wrote: »

Eh, it's not the fault of the HSE that they CANNOT make a person redundant without their permission.......

Again, it is - as I said, I've yet to see the highly paid Director General come out and advocate a compulsory redundancy scheme - the business case is obvious enough and you don't have to be financial whizz to construct it in such a way that costs are reduced and clinical staff numbers are materially increased.

They may chant their mantra of "money follows the patient" but they practice money following the management.

kippy

Jawgap wrote: »

Again, it is - as I said, I've yet to see the highly paid Director General come out and advocate a compulsory redundancy scheme - the business case is obvious enough and you don't have to be financial whizz to construct it in such a way that costs are reduced and clinical staff numbers are materially increased.

They may chant their mantra of "money follows the patient" but they practice money following the management.

As I said, compulsory redundancies are not an option for the HSE or any state body for that matter in the current industrial relation environment......
I'm not say that it shouldn't be done, just that it's not an option.
Not sure why it's taken 130 posts for people to realise that.

Jawgap

kippy wrote: »

As I said, compulsory redundancies are not an option for the HSE or any state body for that matter in the current industrial relation environment......
I'm not say that it shouldn't be done, just that it's not an option.
Not sure why it's taken 130 posts for people to realise that.

So there's no legal impediment? There's no financial impediment? There's no functional or organisational impediment?

Management are just unwilling to manage - compulsory redundancies are not nice, there will never be a benign enough IR environment in which they can be carried out without some significant strife.

The organisation needs to re-configure and save money - the fact that it's not doing either fast enough is a significant managerial and leadership failure.

kippy

Jawgap wrote: »

So there's no legal impediment? There's no financial impediment? There's no functional or organisational impediment?

Management are just unwilling to manage - compulsory redundancies are not nice, there will never be a benign enough IR environment in which they can be carried out without some significant strife.

The organisation needs to re-configure and save money - the fact that it's not doing either fast enough is a significant managerial and leadership failure.

You've obviously missed the whole point of Croke Park 1, 2, the haddington road agreement and any level of industrial peace in the country for the past reasons.
If the HSE and indeed the State itself was able to do what it wanted to reduce cost and head count none of these "agreements" would have been required.

Compulsory redundancies are NOT currently a tool any employer of public or civil servants can use to reduce headcounts or cost.

Jawgap

kippy wrote: »

You've obviously missed the whole point of Croke Park 1, 2, the haddington road agreement and any level of industrial peace in the country for the past reasons.
If the HSE and indeed the State itself was able to do what it wanted to reduce cost and head count none of these "agreements" would have been required.

Compulsory redundancies are NOT currently a tool any employer of public or civil servants can use to reduce headcounts or cost.

Well that raises an interesting point.....are they needed?

I've worked in a few countries in my time and none of them have anything like CP1, 2 etc because their governments actually govern - they don't outsource it to unions or quangoes (not too many quangoes anyway).

In other countries the executive gets on with the job of running the country not occupying themselves with trying to generate structures whereby they can shirk their responsibilities and then pass that off as government.

geeksauce

kippy wrote: »

Can I see some evidence for the piece in bold please?

Actually can I see some evidence of the "millions" spent on this scheme already?


The "perk" is not there for those that "wish" to avail of it - again you fail to see this despite it being pointed out to you many times on this very thread...........

As I said earlier, people get paid "not to work" all the time - the cheaper this is for the state, the better, surely?

Dont bother asking Mary has been asked for evidence countless times before but never gives a response, apparently she knows everyone who is thinking of taking up this scheme and apparently they were all going to retire until this happened now they are choosing this instead. No evidence for any of this but Mary insists on presenting this as fact over and over again, but sure hey who needs to provide evidence for their wild claims anyway.

Gumbo

geeksauce wrote: »

Dont bother asking Mary has been asked for evidence countless times before but never gives a response, apparently she knows everyone who is thinking of taking up this scheme and apparently they were all going to retire until this happened now they are choosing this instead. No evidence for any of this but Mary insists on presenting this as fact over and over again, but sure hey who needs to provide evidence for their wild claims anyway.

Reminds me of a previous poster. I wonder........

kippy

Jawgap wrote: »

Well that raises an interesting point.....are they needed?

I've worked in a few countries in my time and none of them have anything like CP1, 2 etc because their governments actually govern - they don't outsource it to unions or quangoes (not too many quangoes anyway).

In other countries the executive gets on with the job of running the country not occupying themselves with trying to generate structures whereby they can shirk their responsibilities and then pass that off as government.

It's an interesting point but outside the scope of my argument as to why this is one scheme being used in an environment where compulsory redundancies are not an option.

If you what to ask why the government don't just railroad through things, then I'd suggest a seperate thread.

kippy

kceire wrote: »

Reminds me of a previous poster. I wonder........

Indeed......

jmayo

Is the 12,000 that people gets tax free or do normal taxes apply ?

Can people who avail of the scheme actually re enter education during the period of the scheme ?
I heard somewhere that they cannot.

I know of a fair few people trying to get the scheme who are actually leaving the country anyway.
Not sure how much the scheme is adding to solving the issue.

Riskymove

jmayo wrote: »

Is the 12,000 that people gets tax free or do normal taxes apply ?

its liable for tax but PAYE would not apply to €12,000

Godge

jmayo wrote: »

Is the 12,000 that people gets tax free or do normal taxes apply ?

Can people who avail of the scheme actually re enter education during the period of the scheme ?
I heard somewhere that they cannot.

I know of a fair few people trying to get the scheme who are actually leaving the country anyway.
Not sure how much the scheme is adding to solving the issue.

I know of a fair few people who wouldn't otherwise have taken a career break who availed of the scheme. Which area of the public service do those you know trying to get the scheme work in?

As for the costs, it is quite simple and as for why the private sector doesn't offer the scheme, the maths are really quite simple.

cost to private sector of career break scheme: 36k

cost to public sector of career break scheme: 36k less the amount of unemployment benefit/assistance that would have been paid to the person concerned, also less the statutory and enhanced redundancy that would have been paid had the person been made redundant (for every 13 years service that is about a years salary), also less the recruitment cost of a person at the end of the three years as you only return to an existing vacancy (i.e. where someone else has retired/resigned/been fired)

jmayo

Riskymove wrote: »

its liable for tax but PAYE would not apply to €12,000

It was the USC/PRSI/pension levy I was thinking about.

Godge wrote: »

I know of a fair few people who wouldn't otherwise have taken a career break who availed of the scheme. Which area of the public service do those you know trying to get the scheme work in?

HSE is where I know of a few people planning on leaving who see the scheme as offering them extra cash whilst abroad starting up new life and also chance to return to old job if they don't like abroad.

Godge wrote: »

As for the costs, it is quite simple and as for why the private sector doesn't offer the scheme, the maths are really quite simple.

cost to private sector of career break scheme: 36k

cost to public sector of career break scheme: 36k less the amount of unemployment benefit/assistance that would have been paid to the person concerned, also less the statutory and enhanced redundancy that would have been paid had the person been made redundant (for every 13 years service that is about a years salary), also less the recruitment cost of a person at the end of the three years as you only return to an existing vacancy (i.e. where someone else has retired/resigned/been fired)

I know the way the costs break down, my point is that lots of those trying to avail of it were probably leaving anyway.
Sadly the ones that need to be gotten rid of are the ones who will never apply for it.

Riskymove

jmayo wrote: »

It was the USC/PRSI/pension levy I was thinking about.

AFAIK

USC and PRSI would apply alright

Pension levy would not

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

I do not understand



The reference in bold to which I was replying clearly states "if the person gets a job". It does not state if the person moves abroad or if the person becomes self-employed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_(role)

"A job is a regular activity performed in exchange for payment. A person usually begins a job by becoming an employee, volunteering, or starting a business."

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_(role)

"A job is a regular activity performed in exchange for payment. A person usually begins a job by becoming an employee, volunteering, or starting a business."

Let us go back and read post 89.

Godge wrote: »

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"

l

You are now trying to argue that the word "no" means "yes". Funny.

How long did it take you to find the wikipedia definition? here is another one from the business dictionary:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/job.html

"When performed by an employee in an exchange for pay, a job consists of duties, responsibilities, and tasks (performance elements) that are (1) defined and specific, and (2) can be accomplished, quantified, measured, and rated"

What the Q&A means is that you are not allowed take-up employment in the State during the career break. End of story.

If it is so easy to start up a business, wouldn't there be 300,000 new businesses tomorrow and no unemployment?

maryishere

kippy wrote: »

Actually can I see some evidence of the "millions" spent on this scheme already?

According to the Irish examiner it cost the taxpayer €7.8 million up until the end of 2012 to pay the scheme to civil servants alone :
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/78m-paid-to-civil-servants-on-career-breaks-218064.html

Vizzy

What you forgot to mention is that the scheme seems to be saving between 3 and 4 times as much as it is costing.

maryishere

Vizzy wrote: »

What you forgot to mention is that the scheme seems to be saving between 3 and 4 times as much as it is costing.

have you a link for that? How can you claim that when you cannot put a figure on the % of people who would have voluntarily retired from the public service anyway ( to look after kids, to travel to Oz or whatever ) but who are now costing the taxpayer 36k? You have been caught bluffing again.

As asked before, how many times do you have to be reminded no other government has a hair-brained scheme to pay employees for not working?
Its another case of our government being geniuses when it comes to economic matters and everyone else being wrong again?

Vizzy

Don't need to put up a link.
Another poster kindly did it for me.
Look at post#146.

Oh and a hint for you,when you do put up a link,make sure that it doesn't contradict your argument.

Godge

maryishere wrote: »

According to the Irish examiner it cost the taxpayer €7.8 million up until the end of 2012 to pay the scheme to civil servants alone :
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/78m-paid-to-civil-servants-on-career-breaks-218064.html

Epic fail, did you read the link?

Lumbo

maryishere wrote: »

have you a link for that? How can you claim that when you cannot put a figure on the % of people who would have voluntarily retired from the public service anyway ( to look after kids, to travel to Oz or whatever ) but who are now costing the taxpayer 36k? You have been caught bluffing again.

As asked before, how many times do you have to be reminded no other government has a hair-brained scheme to pay employees for not working?
Its another case of our government being geniuses when it comes to economic matters and everyone else being wrong again?

A quick google search tells me you're wrong.

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