Entitlement culture and the squeezed middle in Ireland

Franz Von Peppercorn

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057880329/1/#post107217338

^

There’s a lad who has his pension worked out.

AndrewJRenko

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Let’s instead remove all pension entitlements for the public sector in future beyond the state pension and let them contribute to their own private pension.

Like any employee, you can't retrospectively change terms and conditions, so if you're going to take away an existing contractual entitlement, it's going to cost you. In many cases, public servants accept more modest salaries than they could get elsewhere, given that the overall package, including pension has other compensating benefits. If you want to cut off some of those benefits for existing employees, it is going to cost.


You'll be relieved to hear that the changes made to public service salaries mean around 2013 have made them far less attractive for new entrants. This is one of several limiting factors in recruiting qualified professional staff for many roles.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057880329/1/#post107217338

^

There’s a lad who has his pension worked out.

Thanks for the reminder, but funnily enough - no, I never got anything worked out on the AVC side. I must revisit that one of these days.

Sgt Hartman

DebDynamite wrote: »

People believe those on the dole, etc. are working class. It's an incorrect term - they don't work. They should be called something else. I have no problem calling myself working class - I have a decent enough job, own my own place, drive a car, don't have a common accent etc. Some people might call me middle class, but I'm not!

I think it's an insult to genuine working class people when they get lumped in with those who sponge off benefits and have no intention of ever working. I would categorise that section of society as "welfare class", basically those from rough areas who swan around in their pyjamas in the middle of the day and have never worked a day in their lives.

4ensic15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Like any employee, you can't retrospectively change terms and conditions, so if you're going to take away an existing contractual entitlement, it's going to cost you. In many cases, public servants accept more modest salaries than they could get elsewhere, given that the overall package, including pension has other compensating benefits. If you want to cut off some of those benefits for existing employees, it is going to cost.


You'll be relieved to hear that the changes made to public service salaries mean around 2013 have made them far less attractive for new entrants. This is one of several limiting factors in recruiting qualified professional staff for many roles.


Thanks for the reminder, but funnily enough - no, I never got anything worked out on the AVC side. I must revisit that one of these days.

Civil Servants don't have a contract of employment. They can't sue in contract if their pay is reduced or their pension is changed.

AndrewJRenko

4ensic15 wrote: »

Civil Servants don't have a contract of employment. They can't sue in contract if their pay is reduced or their pension is changed.

They have a Conditions of Service letter, signed by the Director of HR, setting out salary, pension and other conditions. What makes you think that has different status to any employment contract?

4ensic15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They have a Conditions of Service letter, signed by the Director of HR, setting out salary, pension and other conditions. What makes you think that has different status to any employment contract?

Civil Servants are office holders and do not have a contract of employment.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7E32B3AC84EEC117802576010034D09A

It was specifically found in the case of Gilheaney v Revenue Commissioners that civil servants cannot sue in contract, they hold office at the will of please of the minister and under Section 17(2) the Minister for Finance is responsible for (i) the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, and may, for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section, make such arrangements as he thinks fit and may cancel or vary those arrangements.

AndrewJRenko

4ensic15 wrote: »

Civil Servants are office holders and do not have a contract of employment.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7E32B3AC84EEC117802576010034D09A

It was specifically found in the case of Gilheaney v Revenue Commissioners that civil servants cannot sue in contract, they hold office at the will of please of the minister and under Section 17(2) the Minister for Finance is responsible for (i) the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, and may, for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section, make such arrangements as he thinks fit and may cancel or vary those arrangements.

Thanks for the link. Costello's remarks in the Gilheany v Revenue Commissioners are interesting:

“…it would be wrong to assume that because no contractual
relationship arises from the appointment of a person as an officer
in the civil service that no rights and obligations enforceable in a
court of law exist. It seems to me that when a statute confers a
power on a minister to grant a benefit to some person and that
power is exercised it also confers a corresponding right on that
person to receive the benefit. This means that there is a statutory
right which the courts will enforce to the benefits contained in the
terms and conditions of appointment of a civil servant (including,
for example, those relating to remuneration)