Would you work somewhere without sick pay?

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

If you can physically make it out of the house with the flu, you almost certainly don't have the flu

It was sarcastic!

Bam Bam Mickey

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

It was sarcastic!

I know

But stillllll

the_syco

Current place of work, it used to work out you'd get €33 more money if you were out for one day a month. Increase of tax stopped this, however.

Never worked somewhere that paid sick pay, although I know a few who do, and they ensure to take 90% of it every year, as they're "entitled to it".

Frito wrote: »

The reason the carers would give is that they couldn't afford to go sick and receive statutory sick pay from the state.

I think "statutory sick pay from the state" used to be after 3 days. Think it's after six days now.

Generally, if you treat sick people, you'll have more of a chance of getting sick yourself.

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

i don't go to work when I have the flu or a common cold out of consideration of others!

80% of my colds are caused by the aircon in the office.

ComfortKid

People here seem to be genuinely angry that some people take a sick day,some of ye will be getting dropped to work by an undertaker the way ye are going on. Be it a hangover or a sniffle, why does it bother ye if someone doesn't go to work?

Seems no one on here ever "pulled a sickie" yet it happens regularly everywhere.

FrStone

FrStone wrote: »

We were discussing this in work recently. A colleagues husband turned down a job with a company as he found out they didn't pay sick leave.

We have sick pay in my place and to be honest while I've only ever used it for two days, I wouldn't be happy to work somewhere without it. The thought of your pay being docked if you were out for a day with a cold. It probably encourages people to come in too, who should be at home and pass their sickness around the place.

Obviously it's one less worry if I was to ever develop a serious illness and be out for a few months that I would still be paid.

I currently am not eligible for sick pay on my contract which is a temporary contract. Its still an employers market out there so its not as if we have a choice at the moment. You are either happy to work and have a daily routine or happy to be on the dole. For those who do have the pick of jobs fair play. Its a nice choice to have.

FrStone

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I currently am not eligible for sick pay on my contract which is a temporary contract. Its still an employers market out there so its not as if we have a choice at the moment. You are either happy to work and have a daily routine or happy to be on the dole. For those who do have the pick of jobs fair play. Its a nice choice to have.

Yeah, I suppose it all depends on the industry and the candidate if they can negotiate certain parts of the contract.

mushu

I was signed off work sick 6 weeks before I was due to go on maternity leave. I don't know what I'd have done if work didn't give full sick pay. I'd have missed at least a mortgage payment

cbyrd

I was employed in the family business for over 20 years. No sick pay, maternity pay, holiday pay, so you turned up regardless. There were times when I couldn't go to work. Nothing like a snotty hairdresser eh? Lol
I had 5 weeks off after my first baby, 16 days after my second. I left for a year after my 3rd and lasted 6 months. My fourth I was working somewhere else but again didn't qualify for maternity benefit as I hadn't enough time worked in the previous year...
So I just gave up. Too difficult breaking myself. That and the cost of childcare for 5 kids is ridiculous. Maybe when they're older I'll get back to it again, but I don't miss panic when I'd wake up not feeling well or one of the kids had been sick and I'd been up all night..
Something to think about the next time you go for a haircut
Concentration levels need to be high when wielding a scissors

Where I work you wont get paid for taking one sick day unless you have a doctors cert, however if you are out for a couple of weeks you will get a top up of your social welfare illness benefit to bring you almost up to full salary for a few months, it a fair enough system I think and ensure its not abused.

mickdw

kneemos wrote: »

And the rest of us scratch our heads at all your dubious tax breaks

Ya like 50 percent of the tax credit that paye get for a single person meaning about 9000 more tax free for paye worker over self employed so I wouldn't be apologising to anyone for claiming for a portion of phone, transport etc

The Corinthian

In my experience, if you're not getting benefits such as sick pay, that most likely means you are being compensated at a higher level (e.g. contracting) or you have a crap job.

If you're not happy with either situation, it's up to you to do something about it - retrain/study, get another job, renegotiate your role - and get into a situation you are happy with. Otherwise, stop complaining and expecting others to solve your problems for you.

DaveWalsh2020

The Corinthian wrote: »

In my experience, if you're not getting benefits such as sick pay, that most likely means you are being compensated at a higher level (e.g. contracting) or you have a crap job.

If you're not happy with either situation, it's up to you to do something about it - retrain/study, get another job, renegotiate your role - and get into a situation you are happy with. Otherwise, stop complaining and expecting others to solve your problems for you.

Easy tiger

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

In my experience, if you're not getting benefits such as sick pay, that most likely means you are being compensated at a higher level (e.g. contracting) or you have a crap job.

If you're not happy with either situation, it's up to you to do something about it - retrain/study, get another job, renegotiate your role - and get into a situation you are happy with. Otherwise, stop complaining and expecting others to solve your problems for you.

What planet are you on in fairness?
Jobs are still relatively scarce out there and despite the spin and bullshít Enda and co are dishing out its still an employers market. Look at the recruitment process for the civil service as one example.

Retraining (which ive come out of already in 2014) costs thousands and is a struggle with little income if you are lucky and as for 'renegotiating'......please enlighten us on an occasion where on a temporary contract that you have successfully managed to renegotiate the terms?

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

What planet are you on in fairness?
Jobs are still relatively scarce out there and despite the spin and bullshít Enda and co are dishing out its still an employers market. Look at the recruitment process for the civil service as one example.

What do you want? That it's given to you with a bow on it?

Retraining (which ive come out of already in 2014) costs thousands and is a struggle with little income if you are lucky and as for 'renegotiating'......please enlighten us on an occasion where on a temporary contract that you have successfully managed to renegotiate the terms?

I've been a permie for the last year, but prior to that I was freelancing and contracting for about 4. With the latter I naturally negotiated all my rates and walked away from two gigs simply because they would have been exploitative and would have blocked me from getting something else.

And on at least one occasion in the last five years I renegotiated my rate on the first renewal. They didn't like it, but I knew what I was asking for was less than what it would cost them to find someone else.

Presently, as I said, I'm in a permanent role. Money is not (relatively) great, but the conditions are and that suits me for the time being. But I know that this won't suit me forever and so I have quietly built up that experience and those qualifications that I know will be attractive when I choose to move on. I've also networked extensively, which has worked very well for me in the past when looking for work - it is, after all, what people did before LinkedIn.

Ultimately, it can be done. Ultimately, the options are almost always there - I say almost because there will naturally be exceptions to the rule, but for the average person, they are there. It comes down to thinking strategically and, most importantly following through on something that can take months or even years to have a payoff.

Reality is that many instead get distracted. Or they don't bother because it'll take too long. People give up without even making an attempt. And instead they bitch and moan about their jobs and don't realize that unless they actually do something about it they'll be bitching and moaning about the same job in a few years time.

SpaceSasqwatch

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Never ever employ anyone who is familiar with the word 'entitled'

Never ever work for an employer who ignores labour law

il gatto

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

This is the main reason for sick pay as far as I'm concerned, especially in somewhere like a hospital or Garda station. One person not staying home with something like a flu can cause a lot of damage.

Are Gardai particularly prone to infection? Or is it just worse for them, like man-flu? Is that the Blue-Flu? How does it differ from anyone else going to work with the flu?
We need not worry however. With the public service attitude to sick days, they wouldn't show up anyway.

il gatto

The Corinthian wrote: »

What do you want? That it's given to you with a bow on it?

I've been a permie for the last year, but prior to that I was freelancing and contracting for about 4. With the latter I naturally negotiated all my rates and walked away from two gigs simply because they would have been exploitative and would have blocked me from getting something else.

And on at least one occasion in the last five years I renegotiated my rate on the first renewal. They didn't like it, but I knew what I was asking for was less than what it would cost them to find someone else.

Presently, as I said, I'm in a permanent role. Money is not (relatively) great, but the conditions are and that suits me for the time being. But I know that this won't suit me forever and so I have quietly built up that experience and those qualifications that I know will be attractive when I choose to move on. I've also networked extensively, which has worked very well for me in the past when looking for work - it is, after all, what people did before LinkedIn.

Ultimately, it can be done. Ultimately, the options are almost always there - I say almost because there will naturally be exceptions to the rule, but for the average person, they are there. It comes down to thinking strategically and, most importantly following through on something that can take months or even years to have a payoff.

Reality is that many instead get distracted. Or they don't bother because it'll take too long. People give up without even making an attempt. And instead they bitch and moan about their jobs and don't realize that unless they actually do something about it they'll be bitching and moaning about the same job in a few years time.

Bully for you. You realise however, I take it, that your individual circumstances are likely not applicable to many people. As in you may be qualified in a narrow field where there's no opportunities to switch jobs. Or live in a small town where any jobs are scarce.
You have the wherewithal, opportunity and luck (or random chance, whatever you subscribe to) that it's working for you. Some people moan because they don't.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

What planet are you on in fairness?
Jobs are still relatively scarce out there and despite the spin and bullshít Enda and co are dishing out its still an employers market. Look at the recruitment process for the civil service as one example.

Retraining (which ive come out of already in 2014) costs thousands and is a struggle with little income if you are lucky and as for 'renegotiating'......please enlighten us on an occasion where on a temporary contract that you have successfully managed to renegotiate the terms?

The recruitment process for the civil and public service is effectively unchanged - they've tweaked bits here and there but it's still essentially out-moded and has been that way for a number of decades now.

il gatto

Jawgap wrote: »

The recruitment process for the civil and public service is effectively unchanged - they've tweaked bits here and there but it's still essentially out-moded and has been that way for a number of decades now.

As in gross nepotism? Apart from quite specialised rolls, it seems to be the recurring theme with people I know who work in the more "general" areas of the public sector. They "know" somebody.

Diamond Doll

jester77 wrote: »

I get 10 days paid per child for whenever my kids are sick, more valuable than sick days for myself as they are sick more often.

I've never heard of any company having a policy for this, it would be an amazing benefit for me.

I can see people arguing against implementing a policy like this because they would say it favours people with children, but the fact is children do get sick a lot, and if you don't have family nearby and available to take them, well you can't exactly leave them home alone!

I've had to take last minute annual leave days when my son was sick; my partner has had to take unpaid leave. Either way, it doesn't look good taking annual or unpaid leave with no notice. If I were offered a job with a policy like this, it would be a major selling point for me.

I'm interested to know what your colleagues who don't have children think of this policy, though? Any resentment there?

The Corinthian

il gatto wrote: »

Bully for you. You realise however, I take it, that your individual circumstances are likely not applicable to many people.

Everyone's individual circumstances are likely not applicable to many other people - well done for that blinding flash of knowledge - but that does not mean they cannot do anything about their circumstances. There are those who genuinely are screwed, typically for exceptional reasons, but in the reality, the vast majority don't fall into that category. Most people, if they apply themselves and see their plan through, can change their circumstances.

As in you may be qualified in a narrow field where there's no opportunities to switch jobs. Or live in a small town where any jobs are scarce.
You have the wherewithal, opportunity and luck (or random chance, whatever you subscribe to) that it's working for you. Some people moan because they don't.

If you're too specialized, you retrain, ether on your own or with a course. If you live in a small town where any jobs are scarce, you move. If you're unlucky, you try again until your luck turns. Or you review and perhaps change your tactics, or seek another solution.

But if you give up because it's too hard, or the gods are against you, or an answer does not magically present itself immediately (without having bothered to research one) then stop moaning. Unless you are one of that very, very small percentage of people who have a very genuine reason why they can't do something about their situation, then it's just that you find it easier to complain than do something about it.

Jawgap

il gatto wrote: »

As in gross nepotism? Apart from quite specialised rolls, it seems to be the recurring theme with people I know who work in the more "general" areas of the public sector. They "know" somebody.

PAC handles most of the recruitment - so you can 'know' who you want for all the good it'll do given the actual selection is carried out at arm's length from the recruiting department / agency.

Saying that, because it's somewhat anachronistic navigating the recruitment process is a challenge for someone who doesn't take the time to study up on it or who assumes it's comparable to processes run by other large organisations or who assumes that because it's the public sector it's easy. It's not, and having someone on the 'inside' can be help because they can help with preparing applications, personal statements etc and where candidates can place the emphasis in interviews.

Where I did observe nepotism in the PS / CS, it was in the more senior appointments which are still highly politicised.

As for absentee / sickness rates in the PS, these tend to be over-estimated because the prevalence of keeping the long term ill on the books, even if they are not being paid. For example, the place I previously worked in had an average sick days / per employee figure of between 8 and 10 days in any given year - that was halved when you took out those who'd been off for more than a year.

somesoldiers

Anyone know if it's true that Ryanair actually deduct your normal pay if you are sick?

A cousin of mine started with them (not that long ago so very much still green) and excused herself from a family outing when one of the others suggested she call in sick saying she couldn't afford to as she would be docked money if out sick!

il gatto

The Corinthian wrote: »

Everyone's individual circumstances are likely not applicable to many other people - well done for that blinding flash of knowledge - but that does not mean they cannot do anything about their circumstances. There are those who genuinely are screwed, typically for exceptional reasons, but in the reality, the vast majority don't fall into that category. Most people, if they apply themselves and see their plan through, can change their circumstances.

If you're too specialized, you retrain, ether on your own or with a course. If you live in a small town where any jobs are scarce, you move. If you're unlucky, you try again until your luck turns. Or you review and perhaps change your tactics, or seek another solution.

But if you give up because it's too hard, or the gods are against you, or an answer does not magically present itself immediately (without having bothered to research one) then stop moaning. Unless you are one of that very, very small percentage of people who have a very genuine reason why they can't do something about their situation, then it's just that you find it easier to complain than do something about it.

I'd curb the sarcasm. Your motivational pointers aren't as clever as you think. Because something worked for you means very little. People retrain, they move, they work their b@llocks off and sometimes it just doesn't happen.
And many people simply can't. They're too old to switch career, they work hours so long as to preclude retraining, they have family reponsibilities which prevent them moving, they are dyslexic, they can't afford to up skill themselves etc. Last thing they want is some self-congratulatory tw@t talking down to them like children with helpful pointers like "renegotiate" and "retrain".
There's always someone who puts their own good fortune down to themselves and their own efforts, but don't recognise the efforts of those less fortunate and ascribe their "failure" to a lack of work ethic, drive, brains. Sometimes people work just as hard and get dealt a sh1tty hand in life. It's bordering on psychotic to not recognise that.

And if you could link to those statistics where "most" people could do something about their circumstances.

The Corinthian

il gatto wrote: »

I'd curb the sarcasm. Your motivational pointers aren't as clever as you think. Because something worked for you means very little. People retrain, they move, they work their b@llocks off and sometimes it just doesn't happen.

And I'd disagree. I'm not simply speaking for myself, but have seen numerous others do so, sometimes taking years and gargantuan effort, but getting there in the end. Suggesting that you somehow have a better understanding than me, for some magical reason, is a bit laughable.

And many people simply can't. They're too old to switch career, they work hours so long as to preclude retraining, they have family reponsibilities which prevent them moving, they are dyslexic, they can't afford to up skill themselves etc. Last thing they want is some self-congratulatory tw@t talking down to them like children with helpful pointers like "renegotiate" and "retrain".

I've accepted that some cannot. But just because someone may be older, or be dyslexic alone is not reason to doom them to failure. You might consider that the attitude of some "self-congratulatory tw@t", but by comparison I'd suggest your attitude is that of some self-indulgent loser who has constructed a rationalization how his own shortcomings are someone else's fault. Just because you feel that way does not mean that others should give up as easily as you.

There's always someone who puts their own good fortune down to themselves and their own efforts, but don't recognise the efforts of those less fortunate and ascribe their "failure" to a lack of work ethic, drive, brains.

I'm not. I absolutely do not think any less of those who try and fail. I think less of those who don't try at all and then make excuses as to why they need not bother.

il gatto

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I'd disagree. I'm not simply speaking for myself, but have seen numerous others do so, sometimes taking years and gargantuan effort, but getting there in the end. Suggesting that you somehow have a better understanding than me, for some magical reason, is a bit laughable.

I've accepted that some cannot. But just because someone may be older, or be dyslexic alone is not reason to doom them to failure. You might consider that the attitude of some "self-congratulatory tw@t", but by comparison I'd suggest your attitude is that of some self-indulgent loser who has constructed a rationalization how his own shortcomings are someone else's fault. Just because you feel that way does not mean that others should give up as easily as you.

I'm not. I absolutely do not think any less of those who try and fail. I think less of those who don't try at all and then make excuses as to why they need not bother.

Loser? A self-indulgent one at that. I'm quite happy thanks. I don't know why you thought my empathy for others was an indication of some failure or character weakness.
"Others should give up as easily as you". Have I? Given up, I mean? How did you come to that conclusion?
You've done so amazing that I must automatically be a loser by comparison, or do you take being called self satisfied on an anonymous message board really personally?

il gatto

Jawgap wrote: »

PAC handles most of the recruitment - so you can 'know' who you want for all the good it'll do given the actual selection is carried out at arm's length from the recruiting department / agency.

Saying that, because it's somewhat anachronistic navigating the recruitment process is a challenge for someone who doesn't take the time to study up on it or who assumes it's comparable to processes run by other large organisations or who assumes that because it's the public sector it's easy. It's not, and having someone on the 'inside' can be help because they can help with preparing applications, personal statements etc and where candidates can place the emphasis in interviews.

Where I did observe nepotism in the PS / CS, it was in the more senior appointments which are still highly politicised.

As for absentee / sickness rates in the PS, these tend to be over-estimated because the prevalence of keeping the long term ill on the books, even if they are not being paid. For example, the place I previously worked in had an average sick days / per employee figure of between 8 and 10 days in any given year - that was halved when you took out those who'd been off for more than a year.

I know people who've got jobs before they were advertised. I know know people who've had jobs "invented" for them. I don't care. I hate the idea of living in a cubicle replicating paperwork, but there is an absolutely apparent thread of nepotism in many appointments. And not at senior levels, but in the low level ones. Knowing how to apply through someone on the inside is not what gets you the job from scores of candidates. The complicated process is as much to mask the reality as it is best practice.

The Corinthian

il gatto wrote: »

Loser? A self-indulgent one at that. I'm quite happy thanks. I don't know why you thought my empathy for others was an indication of some failure or character weakness.

And I don't know how you thought that my belief in people's capacity to change their own lives made me a "self-congratulatory tw@t", but there you go and given you started with the name-calling I don't have much sympathy for your sense of offence now.

"Others should give up as easily as you". Have I? Given up, I mean? How did you come to that conclusion?

No less a presumption than yours of me.

You've done so amazing that I must automatically be a loser by comparison, or do you take being called self satisfied on an anonymous message board really personally?

You're the one who decided get personal by starting with the name-calling, when I checked last. So I suspect it wasn't me that took things as personally as you did.

il gatto

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I don't know how you thought that my belief in people's capacity to change their own lives made me a "self-congratulatory tw@t", but there you go and given you started with the name-calling I don't have much sympathy for your sense of offence now.

No less a presumption than yours of me.

You're the one who decided get personal by starting with the name-calling, when I checked last. So I suspect it wasn't me that took things as personally as you did.

"In my experience, if you're not getting benefits such as sick pay, that most likely means you are being compensated at a higher level (e.g. contracting) or you have a crap job.

If you're not happy with either situation, it's up to you to do something about it - retrain/study, get another job, renegotiate your role - and get into a situation you are happy with. Otherwise, stop complaining and expecting others to solve your problems for you"

Obnoxious attitude. Your next post made clear your drive compared to lily liveried nobodies.
I take no offence because I couldn't care less. I just found your attitude to "losers" in "crap jobs" who want "a bow on it" to stink. So your sympathy is neither desired or warranted fortunately. I suspect it's hard gained at the best of times.

Jawgap

il gatto wrote: »

I know people who've got jobs before they were advertised. I know know people who've had jobs "invented" for them. I don't care. I hate the idea of living in a cubicle replicating paperwork, but there is an absolutely apparent thread of nepotism in many appointments. And not at senior levels, but in the low level ones. Knowing how to apply through someone on the inside is not what gets you the job from scores of candidates. The complicated process is as much to mask the reality as it is best practice.

Sounds like someone applied and got rejected Probably thought it was a cakewalk.

People can get jobs in the PS/CS long after they are advertised because panels are formed from which prospective future candidates are drawn as vacancies arise - this prevents costly recruitment campaigns being run and re-run on a never ending basis.

No job is just 'created.' First the parent department has to agree that a need exists before a post in the establishment can be created - then DPER have to agree, then the post has to be established - then the parent department has to agree there is a need to fill the post - then DPER have to agree - then someone has to find money in the budget to fund the post - then DPER has to agree to the money identified being spent on filling the post - then sanction has to be sought to run a recruitment campaign.

Very few jobs in the CS/PS are cubicle-bound, paper-shuffling jobs - in fact probably the only thing I miss about my previous PS job was the minimal amount of time spent in the office compared to my current job - on the plus side my office is home-based, so my commute is a lot more tolerable

il gatto

Jawgap wrote: »

Sounds like someone applied and got rejected Probably thought it was a cakewalk.

People can get jobs in the PS/CS long after they are advertised because panels are formed from which prospective future candidates are drawn as vacancies arise - this prevents costly recruitment campaigns being run and re-run on a never ending basis.

No job is just 'created.' First the parent department has to agree that a need exists before a post in the establishment can be created - then DPER have to agree, then the post has to be established - then the parent department has to agree there is a need to fill the post - then DPER have to agree - then someone has to find money in the budget to fund the post - then DPER has to agree to the money identified being spent on filling the post - then sanction has to be sought to run a recruitment campaign.

Very few jobs in the CS/PS are cubicle-bound, paper-shuffling jobs - in fact probably the only thing I miss about my previous PS job was the minimal amount of time spent in the office compared to my current job - on the plus side my office is home-based, so my commute is a lot more tolerable

I'm sorry but that is the official line. I did try once. I was told it was filled internally. Turns out the guy who got it I used to work with. He was not an internal appointment. His wife however had a good job in the same department. I don't care as it was 7-8 years ago and I've always been glad I didn't get it. I did turn down an offer to "put in a word" for me "wink, wink" that I shouldn't have turned down in retrospect, but it was implied that I had an "in". So I had my shot and declined. No bitterness here.
There was an inquiry supposed to investigate multiple jobs the HSE had created and staffed about 5-6 years ago when the economy crashed. People had given nieces and sons jobs. It all went quiet. This was after the recruitment freeze.
The process may be there on paper but it is abused left right and centre. I know good candidates who've been on multiple panels for ages and never got a job and some ill equipped people who've got a nice pensionable job just when they needed it who happen to have "contacts". I appreciate you have belief in the system but I know enough of how it works to realise that it is frequently circumvented.
There are thousands of cubicle jobs in the PS. Every town in Ireland has hundreds, be they CoCo, Uni/IT, HSE, Revenue, Social Welfare. I know dozens of people who work in them with their funny postcards pinned up, their special mug and their stapler with their name on it. Strikes fear into me as a job prospect.

jester77

This little piggy wrote: »

I've never heard of any company having a policy for this, it would be an amazing benefit for me.

I can see people arguing against implementing a policy like this because they would say it favours people with children, but the fact is children do get sick a lot, and if you don't have family nearby and available to take them, well you can't exactly leave them home alone!

I've had to take last minute annual leave days when my son was sick; my partner has had to take unpaid leave. Either way, it doesn't look good taking annual or unpaid leave with no notice. If I were offered a job with a policy like this, it would be a major selling point for me.

I'm interested to know what your colleagues who don't have children think of this policy, though? Any resentment there?

No one has ever brought it up or mentioned anything negatively towards it. It's part of the health system here so the days have to be given to you, not a company policy. Most people where I work love their job, so would rather be working than at home with a sick child. If anything they would feel sympathy more than anything else.

Jawgap

il gatto wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is the official line. I did try once. I was told it was filled internally. Turns out the guy who got it I used to work with. He was not an internal appointment. His wife however had a good job in the same department. I don't care as it was 7-8 years ago and I've always been glad I didn't get it. I did turn down an offer to "put in a word" for me "wink, wink" that I shouldn't have turned down in retrospect, but it was implied that I had an "in". So I had my shot and declined. No bitterness here.
There was an inquiry supposed to investigate multiple jobs the HSE had created and staffed about 5-6 years ago when the economy crashed. People had given nieces and sons jobs. It all went quiet. This was after the recruitment freeze.
The process may be there on paper but it is abused left right and centre. I know good candidates who've been on multiple panels for ages and never got a job and some ill equipped people who've got a nice pensionable job just when they needed it who happen to have "contacts". I appreciate you have belief in the system but I know enough of how it works to realise that it is frequently circumvented.
There are thousands of cubicle jobs in the PS. Every town in Ireland has hundreds, be they CoCo, Uni/IT, HSE, Revenue, Social Welfare. I know dozens of people who work in them with their funny postcards pinned up, their special mug and their stapler with their name on it. Strikes fear into me as a job prospect.

Based on the rest of your post, and your previous posts, I believe you

The Corinthian

il gatto wrote: »

Obnoxious attitude. Your next post made clear your drive compared to lily liveried nobodies.

Grow up. The point I repeatedly made is almost anyone can do it if they decide to do it. Not that I personally have drive, but that almost anyone can and more often than not people don't bother because they start making excuses on how it's not possible or not worth the effort.

You then took offence at this and started with the name-calling, which frankly said more of your insecurities than anything else.

I take no offence because I couldn't care less. I just found your attitude to "losers" in "crap jobs" who want "a bow on it" to stink.

Yeah, your response just screams how you couldn't care less :rolleyes:

This thread is about 'crap jobs', and if you are in one, then call it for what it is. I discussed how to look at improving one's situation, either within the job or by getting a new one. You discussed how life is hard and how you're doomed not to be able to change anything and took offence at the notion that this this may not always be the case.

From what I can see, you didn't contribute anything positive to the discussion except indulge in the need to bellyache and do nothing. What else have you offered here? Seriously.

il gatto

il gatto wrote: »

I know people who've got jobs before they were advertised. I know know people who've had jobs "invented" for them.

I have no issue with this. Generally this happens because a person internally is ideal for the job and the job wouldn't even be advertised only for it has to be due to the rules of public sector appointments.

In other words the issue is that the job shouldn't have to be advertised rather than the internal person shouldn't get it automatically.

Also what some call nepotism others call good networking....... its smart to get to know people and try to know the people in the positions who can get you a job/promotion etc.

theteal

I've just assumed its always been part of any employment contracts I've signed. An annual salary doesn't change because of a sick day. I've had 2 sick days in 10 years so I can't really say its a priority.

Dodge

Can't believe it took until page 8 for a thread like this to turn into an examination of the public sector!?

must be the weather

il gatto

The Corinthian wrote: »

Grow up. The point I repeatedly made is almost anyone can do it if they decide to do it. Not that I personally have drive, but that almost anyone can and more often than not people don't bother because they start making excuses on how it's not possible or not worth the effort.

You then took offence at this and started with the name-calling, which frankly said more of your insecurities than anything else.

Yeah, your response just screams how you couldn't care less :rolleyes:

This thread is about 'crap jobs', and if you are in one, then call it for what it is. I discussed how to look at improving one's situation, either within the job or by getting a new one. You discussed how life is hard and how you're doomed not to be able to change anything and took offence at the notion that this this may not always be the case.

From what I can see, you didn't contribute anything positive to the discussion except indulge in the need to bellyache and do nothing. What else have you offered here? Seriously.

I offered a reasonable attitude to people who have a "crap" job and may find it difficult to improve their situation. Yet again you've decided "almost anyone" can do it. All I did was take issue with that notion and the bolshy way you chose to voice it. If you think crowing is offering anything, I suspect you are mistaken.
And again, why the insistence that I have one of these "crap" jobs? Or that I feel "doomed"? Or I'm insecure? Because I disagree with you and I don't like your attitude it seems. Must make me an insecure loser. How blissfully simplistic things must be for you. "Fer or agin' us". Strivers and losers. Black and white with nary a shade of grey to discuss.
And no sick pay has become quite normal by the way. It's not an indicator of a crap job, rather of cash strapped companies and unscrupulous employers using the recession to make some "readjustments" to their financial responsibilities.

Paid or unpaid. If I'm sick I'm taking sick leave. And I wish you big macho cúnts would do the same. It's verrrrryyyy annoying sitting beside someone coughing, sniffling and sneezing all day and probably doing the same amount of work as if they were at home anyway (which is fúck all!)

il gatto

Hailee Lemon Flare wrote: »

I have no issue with this. Generally this happens because a person internally is ideal for the job and the job wouldn't even be advertised only for it has to be due to the rules of public sector appointments.

In other words the issue is that the job shouldn't have to be advertised rather than the internal person shouldn't get it automatically.

Also what some call nepotism others call good networking....... its smart to get to know people and try to know the people in the positions who can get you a job/promotion etc.

Not internal appointments. That was what disappointed people applying were told. It was to explain away why their applications were going to a panel but the actual job was gone. I found out weeks later who'd actually got it. Like I said, I've always been glad I didn't get it.

il gatto

Jawgap wrote: »

Based on the rest of your post, and your previous posts, I believe you

You're looking for an agenda that's not there. There's an attitude in the PS that those outside it have no understanding of how it really works. There are 300,000 current public sector employees and probably another 200,000 retired PS employees. Everyone knows them, is married to them, has siblings, parents, mates etc. Everyone knows how it "officially" works and indeed, that is how it works in the majority of cases. But everyone also knows how malleable that system can be for certain people.
There's one or two jobs in the PS that I would quite like. The rest just aren't for me. I don't need a vendetta to point out that the hiring process is regularly abused.

Sleepy

I'm not contractually entitled to sick-pay but I've never had a days pay deducted from my salary when I've been too sick to come into the office. Then again, I do a fair amount of business travel and don't mind putting in a late night when it's needed. It's swings and roundabouts. Unless you're working with total arseholes there's always room for some give and take.

Jawgap

il gatto wrote: »

You're looking for an agenda that's not there. There's an attitude in the PS that those outside it have no understanding of how it really works. There are 300,000 current public sector employees and probably another 200,000 retired PS employees. Everyone knows them, is married to them, has siblings, parents, mates etc. Everyone knows how it "officially" works and indeed, that is how it works in the majority of cases. But everyone also knows how malleable that system can be for certain people.
There's one or two jobs in the PS that I would quite like. The rest just aren't for me. I don't need a vendetta to point out that the hiring process is regularly abused.

Complain then

www.cpsa.ie/en/

The Corinthian

il gatto wrote: »

I offered a reasonable attitude to people who have a "crap" job and may find it difficult to improve their situation.

Bollocks. Where did you offer a reasonable attitude? From what I can see all you've done is moan about how the system is 'fixed'.

Look, if you really couldn't care less, just stop responding to me. Continuing to do so simply makes it look like I hit a nerve with you.

il gatto

Jawgap wrote: »

Complain then

www.cpsa.ie/en/

But i've already said I didn't want the job. And i had an offer of a dodgy "in" for another job. I would complain, why? On behalf of others? Or you using it as a put up or shut up post? Should I send you on the emails to "prove" I've complained?
Anyone who can't accept the PS hiring process was often corrupted is either naive or deluding themselves. I won't stoop to saying you know and won't admit it.
I disagree with you. You disagree with me. I'm sure others will see their own views reflected here one way or the other.

il gatto

The Corinthian wrote: »

Bollocks. Where did you offer a reasonable attitude? From what I can see all you've done is moan about how the system is 'fixed'.

Look, if you really couldn't care less, just stop responding to me. Continuing to do so simply makes it look like I hit a nerve with you.

On the contrary. You've taken grave exception to being disagreed with. You must not take kindly to being contradicted. You steamed into a thread of people reasonably discussing their situations and views to tell them it was basically their own fault for having crap jobs and not being like you, them threw hissy fit when someone called you self satisfied.
Your attitude was they could do better. My attitude was that the majority were doing as well as they can.
The discussion on PS hiring is an aside. It's not "fixed" against me or anyone else. Just tilted in favour or some. One can point it out without having a personal score to settle.

Jawgap

il gatto wrote: »

But i've already said I didn't want the job. And i had an offer of a dodgy "in" for another job. I would complain, why? On behalf of others? Or you using it as a put up or shut up post? Should I send you on the emails to "prove" I've complained?
Anyone who can't accept the PS hiring process was often corrupted is either naive or deluding themselves. I won't stoop to saying you know and won't admit it.
I disagree with you. You disagree with me. I'm sure others will see their own views reflected here one way or the other.

No, just in my experience it's remarkable how it's the people who were unsuccessful are utterly convinced the system of recruitment is corrupt or set against them.

In my experience, the reason people don't get jobs in the PS/CS is because either they are not suitable fits; they underestimated the recruitment process; or plain old fashioned hubris.

If anything, I've found the private sector more 'nepotistic' and 'corrupt' - the recruitment processes aren't nearly as transparent, there's no process of appeal or review and the criteria for selection are often opaque at best - not that I'm complaining, as it was those same processes that led me out of the PS to my current role

il gatto

Jawgap wrote: »

No, just in my experience it's remarkable how it's the people who were unsuccessful are utterly convinced the system of recruitment is corrupt or set against them.

In my experience, the reason people don't get jobs in the PS/CS is because either they are not suitable fits; they underestimated the recruitment process; or plain old fashioned hubris.

If anything, I've found the private sector more 'nepotistic' and 'corrupt' - the recruitment processes aren't nearly as transparent, there's no process of appeal or review and the criteria for selection are often opaque at best - not that I'm complaining, as it was those same processes that led me out of the PS to my current role

In the private sector you can hire who you see fit. You advertise but there's no stipulations on who you hire (unless you hire a chimp to run a huge company, in which case you may be done for reckless trading). It's your money/company.
PS jobs are public money and that puts them into a completely different area.
The job I applied for I didn't really want or need. I felt no hubris at being told it was filled internally. I didn't care until I found out they'd lied. The guy who got it was actually less qualified and having worked with him, one of the laziest people I've ever met. Sound enough guy and smart enough and I liked him. But unsuitable in most ways. And married to someone with pull in that department.
It's not underestimating the recruitment process. It's called being lied to. Getting a fair shot and failing, disappointing but I can live with it. Being fobbed off as a job funded by my taxes gets "given" to someone. That's annoying. Regardless of the fact I didn't really want the job.

The Corinthian

il gatto wrote: »

On the contrary. You've taken grave exception to being disagreed with.

Whatever. Your posts speak for themselves; bellyaching and absolutely no constructive advice. And the moment you hear something that you disliked, not to mention misinterpreted, you got personal almost immediately.

The discussion on PS hiring is an aside. It's not "fixed" against me or anyone else. Just tilted in favour or some.

So it's not fixed because it's fixed in favour of some rather than being fixed against others? Right.

TomBtheGoat

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Never even worked anywhere with the glorious fancy notions of holiday pay, overtime, maternity pay, or bank holidays in lieu either, and never employed anyone that had them notions.

Then I'd like to take this opportunity, to welcome you to the 21st century.