Crazy allowances or perks

n97 mini

Godge wrote: »

In the public sector, expenses are monitored and vouched and you would not get away with driving down a bit earlier in the morning and pocketing the 127 euro.

Eh, where I worked if you were sent to Cork to work for a day you claimed an overnight the night before and the night of the day you were there, and mileage for driving down. In a 1.6 litre car a day in Cork could net over €600 in mileage and subsistence. This was the norm. And you could claim overtime for the time spend "driving" to Cork the night before. The only thing that I ever saw rejected by finance was a receipt for a car wash in Cork.

n97 mini

Jawgap wrote: »

Not my experience in the bit of the PS I worked in. We always struggled to get people to take jobs in the first instance and retain them in the second instance until 2008.......

In my own experience the public sector always had a bit reputation for been a hiding place for wasters (whether it's true or not is another story). In addition basic pay was about 15% lower than the private sector. So superficially when comparing just base salaries it didn't look attractive. Once I got in it soon became clear that the working conditions were a lot more relaxed, longer holidays, shorter working week, flexitime, expenses, parking at work, overtime, hard to get sacked etc. I don't recall ever being paid overtime in the private sector.

Gumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

Eh, where I worked if you were sent to Cork to work for a day you claimed an overnight the night before and the night of the day you were there, and mileage for driving down. In a 1.6 litre car a day in Cork could net over €600 in mileage and subsistence. This was the norm. And you could claim overtime for the time spend "driving" to Cork the night before. The only thing that I ever saw rejected by finance was a receipt for a car wash in Cork.

According to apple maps it's a 500km round trip from Dublin City centre.
500 x 0.59c = €295
So you were claiming €300 for 2 nights stay, talk about screwing the tax payer!

If we have a course in, let's say cork tomorrow at 9am. We get overnight stay tonight so we are on time tomorrow but at the end of the day we have to drive home. We get our mileage, enough cash for a lunch/dinner and mileage for the home journey. And time in lieu for any time spent above the norm.

n97 mini wrote: »

In my own experience the public sector always had a bit reputation for been a hiding place for wasters (whether it's true or not is another story). In addition basic pay was about 15% lower than the private sector. So superficially when comparing just base salaries it didn't look attractive. Once I got in it soon became clear that the working conditions were a lot more relaxed, longer holidays, shorter working week, flexitime, expenses, parking at work, overtime, hard to get sacked etc. I don't recall ever being paid overtime in the private sector.

How times have changed. All of the above are gone and I don't recall ever getting paid over time in the PS. But I most certainly did in the private sector.

sarumite

kceire wrote: »

According to apple maps

The credibility of your post was gone within the first 4 words.:pac:

Gumbo

sarumite wrote: »

The credibility of your post was gone within the first 4 words.:pac:

Replace apple with google, same outcome.

Jawgap

n97 mini wrote: »

Eh, where I worked if you were sent to Cork to work for a day you claimed an overnight the night before and the night of the day you were there, and mileage for driving down. In a 1.6 litre car a day in Cork could net over €600 in mileage and subsistence. This was the norm. And you could claim overtime for the time spend "driving" to Cork the night before. The only thing that I ever saw rejected by finance was a receipt for a car wash in Cork.

Maybe a few years ago, but certainly not now. we get paid a daily rate when we're on the road, but we have to keep receipts in case we get selected for audit. Also, if you don't stay overnight you can't claim an overnight and the last missive we got round on the subject said that if whatever job, meeting etc we were at finished by 4pm we were expected to drive back to Dublin from wherever we were, including Dingle!

n97 mini wrote: »

In my own experience the public sector always had a bit reputation for been a hiding place for wasters (whether it's true or not is another story). In addition basic pay was about 15% lower than the private sector. So superficially when comparing just base salaries it didn't look attractive. Once I got in it soon became clear that the working conditions were a lot more relaxed, longer holidays, shorter working week, flexitime, expenses, parking at work, overtime, hard to get sacked etc. I don't recall ever being paid overtime in the private sector.

My contracted working week in the PS is shorter than the one I had in the private sector, but up until Haddington Road my actual working week was about the same. Now the employer gets what they pay for - no more, no less.

I've never been paid overtime nor a bonus in the PS - when working privately I never got overtime per se, but I got a bonus part of which was based on the number of chargeable hours I logged.

Flexitime I get, but that pales into comparison to the flexible working I was able to enjoy in the private sector.

My expenses are modest in the PS and significantly more limited - for example in the private sector my employers paid for travel etc as the PS does, but also paid my professional fees, journal subscriptions (on a collective basis), fees for continuing professional development and paid for me to attend the conference of my professional body - none of these are paid for in the PS.

In the private sector I had a allowance for entertainment - in the PS try and buy someone you are doing business with a cup of coffee and claim it back and see how far you get

In the private sector, my employer paid my health insurance and gave me an allowance towards gym membership.

My base salary when I started in the PS was above the median for my profession - so yes, it was - at the time - generous. But now it ranks at the 37th percentile.

.......and tomorrow I have to begin begging our parent department and DPER to replace the guy who left last week after six months to take up a job in the private sector. But at least this one didn't emigrate.

sarumite

kceire wrote: »

Replace apple with google

That is an improvement at least.

n97 mini

kceire wrote: »

According to apple maps it's a 500km round trip from Dublin City centre.
500 x 0.59c = €295

That alone is part of the problem, it's far too high. Some members of the Army get a Public Transport rate, i.e. the price of the bus return. This should be extended.

Jawgap

n97 mini wrote: »

That alone is part of the problem, it's far too high. Some members of the Army get a Public Transport rate, i.e. the price of the bus return. This should be extended.

Excellent idea.

After all Ireland is renowned for its efficient public transport system.

We make quite a bit of use of leased in vehicles - and more so since HRA came in and more people have refused to carry kit in their private cars.

The main problem is we've no parking for our new 'fleet' near the office.

Gumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

That alone is part of the problem, it's far too high. Some members of the Army get a Public Transport rate, i.e. the price of the bus return. This should be extended.

You had no problem claiming it while you could.

n97 mini

And neither did the other 300 staff.

mikemac1

smelly sock wrote: »

The absolute majority of private sector workers would not in the good times have got out of bed for what the equivalent in the public sector was earning.

That's pure fact.

Now, because the good times have left a lot of them up the s****r without a paddle they want us still low paid PS workers to get a kicking.

Well f**k off. You guys had the good times, now pay for them yourselves.

Myself and a few hundred others sat in the RDS in 2006 for the aptitude tests for Executive Officer. A salary of 28k and a lot more then then my banking job was paying me.

Alas I failed. Got in the top 3% for the problem solving and top 15% for the scenario based exam but not good enough

You needed to hit elite percentages to even get near an interview. Probably less then 50 EO jobs on offer

Easily over 3,000 went for those tests and I suppose many were clerical officers looking to push themselves forward, good for them.And people from the private sector too, a good mix

2006 was good times smelly socks? I'd have been more then happy with 28k at the time.

Gumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

And neither did the other 300 staff.

300 people travelled. Could you not of car pooled like we do now a days?
If there is under 4 people going anywhere, we car pool.

sarumite

Jawgap wrote: »

I've never been paid overtime nor a bonus in the PS - when working privately I never got overtime per se, but I got a bonus part of which was based on the number of chargeable hours I logged.

Swings and roundabouts, I got a bonus in the private sector and increments in the public.

Flexitime I get, but that pales into comparison to the flexible working I was able to enjoy in the private sector.

I had the opposite experience, I guess it depends on where you work.

My expenses are modest in the PS and significantly more limited - for example in the private sector my employers paid for travel etc as the PS does, but also paid my professional fees, journal subscriptions (on a collective basis), fees for continuing professional development and paid for me to attend the conference of my professional body - none of these are paid for in the PS.

I have had those same same expenses paid for me working in both the PS and private sector myself. To say none are paid for in the PS is factually incorrect. Of course no all private sector employers will pay them either...as I said earlier it depends on where you are working within the PS or private sector.

In the private sector I had a allowance for entertainment - in the PS try and buy someone you are doing business with a cup of coffee and claim it back and see how far you get

I personally never had an enterainment allowance, however my managers in both the PS and private sector did. If we had a person visiting us, it was common for us to take the person out for dinner.

In the private sector, my employer paid my health insurance and gave me an allowance towards gym membership.

Thats good for you. I got gym membership myself, although my pension was far worse. Swings and roundabouts.

My base salary when I started in the PS was above the median for my profession - so yes, it was - at the time - generous. But now it ranks at the 37th percentile.

Generally the private sector have preferred to lay people off rather than reduce wages. I would imagine if the PS unions had agreed to compulsory redundancies, then the reduction in pay wouldn't have been so heavy.

Jawgap

@sarumite - I don't disagree with anything you say, but I'd make the following observations.

I got increments and bonuses - bonuses were always significantly larger. I didn't get an increment this year and my sister who works for an Irish bank got a low four figure bonus last year and expects to get similar this year.

Flexitime is about attendance, not working. In the private sector I could work from home and could adjust my working pattern to suit both my needs and the need of the business.

That's true about expenses. My bit of the PS withdrew all that and stopped paying our professional indemnity insurance on the basis that most practitioners in my profession pay their own - which they do but only if they are working as sole trader contractors. Firms / practices generally pay as it's cheaper if it's purchased on a collective basis.

I figured if the PS was treating me as a private contractor, I'd behave as one - hence working only contracted hours and taking on work / projects externally.

We were permitted some latitude during the EC Presidency on bit of 'entertainment.'

Agree with you on the layoff point - unfortunately in the PS unions and management are working hand-in-glove - management keep numbers employed on reduced wages to keep union membership from declining. Which obviously inhibits real change from occurring.

woodoo

Jawgap wrote: »

In the private sector I had a allowance for entertainment - in the PS try and buy someone you are doing business with a cup of coffee and claim it back and see how far you get.

Other areas of the PS are much more lax than that.

ezra_pound

n97 mini wrote: »

That alone is part of the problem, it's far too high. Some members of the Army get a Public Transport rate, i.e. the price of the bus return. This should be extended.

In the civil service you must take public transport unless there is no service going the route in question or it is more expensive than going by car at travel and sub rates.

srsly78

Jawgap you are not allowed to expense coffees for non-employees in any sector, whether it be public or private. Customers are not employees. Incidental use of an office coffee machine you might just about get away with, but not taking them to Starbucks or wherever

Jawgap

srsly78 wrote: »

Jawgap you are not allowed to expense coffees for non-employees in any sector, whether it be public or private.

Eh.......I think I know what I'm allowed expense and not expense, both now and in previous jobs.

In my previous role in the private sector I paid (and expensed) plenty of coffee - usually at the end of some fairly nice meals.

Jawgap

srsly78 wrote: »

Jawgap you are not allowed to expense coffees for non-employees in any sector, whether it be public or private. Customers are not employees. Incidental use of an office coffee machine you might just about get away with, but not taking them to Starbucks or wherever

Nice edit/addition......we were often brought out for meals by our boss to celebrate a good quarter, the successful conclusion of a project or the winning / retention of a meaty contract - I never got the sense he was paying out of his pocket.

Nor was I asked to pay out of my pocket when I brought my team out to celebrate our minor victories - the firm gave me a budget to work within for such occasions.

srsly78

Your boss is allowed to entertain employees (and you can entertain your team/colleagues). This is different from buying stuff for customers, which is not allowed.

Just because you got away with stuff does not mean it's allowed.

Jawgap

srsly78 wrote: »

Your boss is allowed to entertain employees (and you can entertain your team/colleagues). This is different from buying stuff for customers, which is not allowed.

Just because you got away with stuff does not mean it's allowed.

Excuse me, but what are you on about?

You seem to be suggesting that the corporate hospitality sector is one giant criminal enterprise.

Of course you can entertain customers and clients! Where does it say you can't?

srsly78

Right here: http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/running/allowable-expenses.html

Read section under "what can not be claimed". Ask your accountant if you need help interpreting it.

Jawgap

srsly78 wrote: »

Right here: http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/running/allowable-expenses.html

Read section under "what can not be claimed". Ask your accountant if you need help interpreting it.

Maybe you'd go back and point out where I suggested anything was tax deductible?

Maybe the firm I worked for did claim the expenses mentioned as deductible but I very much doubt it given the risk of disruption caused by an adverse audit finding.

srsly78

Ah we are gonna discuss the definition of "expense" now, great stuff.

Jawgap

I never said anything was tax deductible.

You probably saw the word 'claim' and assumed the claim in question related to tax deductability, rather than the obvious context which was me (as an employee) being reimbursed by my employer for money expended on their behalf.

An honest mistake - pity you didn't take the opportunity to admit it rather than try to take the semantic route out of your predicament.

'Night 'night

sarumite

Jawgap wrote: »

@sarumite - I don't disagree with anything you say, but I'd make the following observations.

I got increments and bonuses - bonuses were always significantly larger. I didn't get an increment this year and my sister who works for an Irish bank got a low four figure bonus last year and expects to get similar this year.

I think it is important to remember that increments are accumulative, whereas bonuses are one-off's, so even though you won't get an increment this year your current salary will reflect that you got one last time. I would also say that bonuses in banks are probably the exception rather than the rule.

Flexitime is about attendance, not working. In the private sector I could work from home and could adjust my working pattern to suit both my needs and the need of the business.

That is very much specific for your work though, for many including myself working from home is not an option.

Jawgap

sarumite wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that increments are accumulative, whereas bonuses are one-off's, so even though you won't get an increment this year your current salary will reflect that you got one last time. I would also say that bonuses in banks are probably the exception rather than the rule.


That is very much specific for your work though, for many including myself working from home is not an option.

The only point I'd make is that generally increments are theoretically cumulative but the lack of even a cost of living salary increase, and the impact of the various 'reforms' (cuts) somewhat undermines the idea of them being cumulative in practice - I'm drawing down substantially less now than I was three years ago, despite having received an increment along the way.

Plus, in all the years I worked privately (except for 18 months when I was effectively self-employed) I never failed to earn my bonus, so while each bonus was indeed a one-off, I knew what to do to earn it.

I do agree, however, that increments are toxic - in the sense they don't differentiate between the innovative and indolent.

Bonuses in banks are still very much available to back office legal staff - not on a scale comparable to previous years, but still far in excess of anything that might be available in the PS.

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

Generally the private sector have preferred to lay people off rather than reduce wages. I would imagine if the PS unions had agreed to compulsory redundancies, then the reduction in pay wouldn't have been so heavy.

Wow its nice to see this point being made. Can you imagine the reaction of some if PS Unions agreed to compulsory redundancies as a quid pro quo for no pay cuts! Boards would collapse with the weight of posts criticizing the PS for being me feiners. At least there might just be a growing acceptance that PS pay cuts were substantial.

ardmacha

Firstly in relation to compulsory redundancies this is not applicable to most parts of the PS. People don't want less teachers, nurses etc in general. Most people in the the PS are in no way redundant. Even where there are surplus staff the need to pay redundancy would mean that redeployment is the better strategy in general.

In any case, for pre '95 employees legislation would be needed as this group were not entitled to unemployment benefit and it is complex.

What I would propose, however, is that those section of the PS where work may have declined would have a 4 day week or the like and a consequent greater pay reduction.

n97 mini

ezra_pound wrote: »

In the civil service you must take public transport unless there is no service going the route in question or it is more expensive than going by car at travel and sub rates.

You might need to substantiate that, as it's not the case anywhere else in the PS.

Jawgap

It's not about absolute numbers - the PS does not have a surplus of staff (or if it does, it's minimal). - but it is 'lumpy.' There's lots of local surpluses and deficiencies.

You need to have the right people doing the right jobs in the right places, and fundamentally the CS/PS doesn't. There's no mechanisms available to quickly (over months rather than decades) re-configure organisations to meet immediate demands.

Personally, I'd prefer a proper redundancy / redeployment scheme to be applied instead of pay cuts, but I would say that wouldn't I - I'm in an in understaffed area so it's highly unlikely any such scheme would adversely impact me.

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

Wow its nice to see this point being made. Can you imagine the reaction of some if PS Unions agreed to compulsory redundancies as a quid pro quo for no pay cuts! Boards would collapse with the weight of posts criticizing the PS for being me feiners. At least there might just be a growing acceptance that PS pay cuts were substantial.

Thats probably actually what would happen. Afterall the 'me feiner' tag has been used as a cudgel to knock people working in the private sector on here for long enough, I agree its unlikely that it wouldn't be used for PS workers as well. Do you think any growing acceprance of substantial PS cuts would be matched by a growing acceptance by some that a portion of those paycuts were necessary to 'pay' for increased job security?

Gumbo

sarumite wrote: »

growing acceptance by some that a portion of those paycuts were necessary to 'pay' for increased job security?

Totally.

sarumite

Jawgap wrote: »

The only point I'd make is that generally increments are theoretically cumulative but the lack of even a cost of living salary increase, and the impact of the various 'reforms' (cuts) somewhat undermines the idea of them being cumulative in practice - I'm drawing down substantially less now than I was three years ago, despite having received an increment along the way.

Thats also happening in the private sector. I posted a link to show that 2013 third quarter earnings increases were higher in the PS than the private sector. Obviously when the full implementation of the HRA is in place, this will change the numbers.

n97 mini

kceire wrote: »

300 people travelled. Could you not of car pooled like we do now a days?

Why would you car pool if it was going to cost you hundreds in expenses that you couldn't legitimately claim.

gazzer

ezra_pound wrote: »

In the civil service you must take public transport unless there is no service going the route in question or it is more expensive than going by car at travel and sub rates.

That's true in my CS Department too. You can take your car and travel to our Head Office in Dublin but you can only claim the bus fare equivalent amount.

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

Thats probably actually what would happen. Afterall the 'me feiner' tag has been used as a cudgel to knock people working in the private sector on here for long enough, I agree its unlikely that it wouldn't be used for PS workers as well. Do you think any growing acceprance of substantial PS cuts would be matched by a growing acceptance by some that a portion of those paycuts were necessary to 'pay' for increased job security?

And here was I thinking that the 'me feiner' tag was exclusively reserved for PS, e.g. the older PS workers voting to maintain their pay levels at the expense of lower pay scales for new entrants - a particlarly vile example of this affliction.

ezra_pound

gazzer wrote: »

That's true in my CS Department too. You can take your car and travel to our Head Office in Dublin but you can only claim the bus fare equivalent amount.

It's true across the entire cs.

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

And here was I thinking that the 'me feiner' tag was exclusively reserved for PS, e.g. the older PS workers voting to maintain their pay levels at the expense of lower pay scales for new entrants - a particlarly vile example of this affliction.

Well you thinking that it was exclusively reserved for the PS staff who chose to screw over newer entrants was wrong. It gets used quite a bit around here for other groups as well.

relax carry on

n97 mini wrote: »

You might need to substantiate that, as it's not the case anywhere else in the PS.

Try this

Payment of Travel Expenses
5. Circular 11/82 provides that where an officer is travelling every effort should
be made to use public transport. However an officer may use his/her car in the
following circumstances:
- Where no suitable public transport (i.e. bus or train) is available
- Where public transport is available at equal or greater expense
- Where the use of public transport would result in the loss of official time, which it is
necessary to avoid.
 
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/other/2009/boirdsnippap09/TandS.pdf

n97 mini

That was always the case in theory but..

relax carry on wrote: »

- Where no suitable public transport (i.e. bus or train) is available

there's never one available...

relax carry on

n97 mini wrote: »

That was always the case in theory but..



there's never one available...

Pretty sure an internal auditor would take a different view as they wouldn't really deal in theories, rather what procedure was to be followed.

Gumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

Why would you car pool if it was going to cost you hundreds in expenses that you couldn't legitimately claim.

Because if 3 of us were travelling from our office to the same site, no way will my boss pay 3 sets of mileage claims.

That carry on May happen in portions of the private sector but not in my PS profession.

One car goes, one person claims the mileage. Now who drives and claims the mileage is an internal fight out

n97 mini

A day in another office wouldn't normally start at the office, it'd start from home, and I never lived with anyone I worked with

kceire wrote: »

That carry on May happen in portions of the private sector but not in my PS profession.

Suppose it was only a matter of time before you tried to make it a private vs public, but the reality is very few private sector employers pay even half the mileage rate the public sector pays.

n97 mini

relax carry on wrote: »

Pretty sure an internal auditor would take a different view as they wouldn't really deal in theories, rather what procedure was to be followed.

Not a lot the internal auditor can say when you tell him categorically there is no bus stop near your house. What is he going to do? Tell you you're wrong?

Godge

n97 mini wrote: »

Suppose it was only a matter of time before you tried to make it a private vs public, but the reality is very few private sector employers pay even half the mileage rate the public sector pays.

The public sector mileage rates are approved by Revenue for the purposes of the maximum allowable tax-free expenses. They are widely used in the private sector, both by employers, but also by the self-employed and company directors, every accountant knows that.

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

Well you thinking that it was exclusively reserved for the PS staff who chose to screw over newer entrants was wrong. It gets used quite a bit around here for other groups as well.

Ah well both sectors have similar objectives so, i.e. to protect their terms and conditions. I think I've said it before, I've yet to see the private sector offering to take pay cuts so that redundancies can be reduced just like I've yet to see existing private sector staff being overly concerned about their new entrant colleagues' pay rates.

Gumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

but the reality is very few private sector employers pay even half the mileage rate the public sector pays.

Seriously, you maintain that very few private sector companies pay more that 35c per km, ha ha, i got three times that in my PrvS days.


Any employee running their own car for their job on 35c per km is utter madness.
Unless they have obviously crossed the limit for the civil service rates, which we adhere to, it drops to 29c IIRC after 5k.

n97 mini wrote: »

A day in another office wouldn't normally start at the office, it'd start from home, and I never lived with anyone I worked with

You are not allowed to claim for mileage from your home to the office, even another office unless the temp office is more than the distance from your normal home-office route, and you minus that distance. So you can only claim for the above and beyond distance.

n97 mini wrote: »

Not a lot the internal auditor can say when you tell him categorically there is no bus stop near your house. What is he going to do? Tell you you're wrong?

you cannot claim from your residence, only from the offices which you are based. If there is no bus stop at your house, then how do you get to the office nomally?

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

Ah well both sectors have similar objectives so, i.e. to protect their terms and conditions. I think I've said it before, I've yet to see the private sector offering to take pay cuts so that redundancies can be reduced just like I've yet to see existing private sector staff being overly concerned about their new entrant colleagues' pay rates.

Well it can be a little bit more difficult in the private sector, especially if there is no union. It is more typical for bosses in the private sector to make unilateral decision than it is in the PS. That is not to say it doesn't happen in the PS, only that there is usually greater consultation which allows the employees a greater input into the decision making process. This was particularly the case in the negotiations over the CPA and then later the HRA where the employees were able to make a contribution towards the outcome. I am not aware of similar agreements existing en-masse within the private sector.