# Requesting transfer Clerical Officer in HSE, after being called off panel



## buzybee (24 Aug 2007)

Hello

I am on a panel for Clerical Officer for HSE.  I am fairly high up, so I hope I will get called for a job in the next few months.

However, I am concerned that some HSE Clerical Officers in hospitals work from 8am to 4pm, some work from 9 to 5 pm and some even work from 9.30am to 5pm.  Do the people on the 8-4 and 9-5 jobs get the same pay as people in the 9.30-5 jobs?  Even though the people on the 9.30-5 jobs work 2.5 hrs less every week?

I don't really mind if I am placed in a 9-5 job, but I would prefer not to be placed in a 8-4 job.  Is there anything I can do at offer stage to request the 9-5 or 9.30-5?   Do I have to just take whatever job comes up, when I am called or else lose my place on the panel?

If I am called for an 8-4 job, and if I have to accept this in order to get into public service, can I apply for a transfer to a 9-5 job straightaway? or will I be stuck in the 8-4 job for 2 or 3 yrs.

All answers/comments appreciated,  Tks


----------



## micmclo (24 Aug 2007)

I'm guessing you're a women. Why, because you're worrying over something minor that hasn't even happened yet.

My advice is get the job first and then worry about your schedule.
Sure if the government puts a cap of new hires you might never even get the job.

Sorry if that seems unhelpful


----------



## tinkerbell (24 Aug 2007)

Not sure if its the same but Civil Service you can apply one year after you join to transfer.   I had wanted a place that had flexi time when I applied and made that clear thro interviews, placement notification, etc. but yet got one of the few places that dont    No harm asking but I think they just give you what suits them


----------



## buzybee (25 Aug 2007)

The reason I would not like the 8-4 hrs, is because I have put a lot of effort into my career with further study etc.  If I wanted work with 8-4 hours, I would have left school after Inter cert and would have gone into a factory.

Instead, I studied hard for 6 hons in my leaving cert, then studied business in college, then did accountancy exams part time.  I feel that the effort and money I have put into my career, should be grounds for getting a job with reasonable start times.  For the past 2 yrs I have been doing contract work, trying to build my experience further.

For the past few years, I have worked in pressurised jobs with 45 and 50 hr weeks, all for salaries of 25 to 30K.  I have had an ulcer and skin rashes & lots of minor ailments due to the stress of work.  Even still, I have not taken sick leave off work.  It is not good for my health to continue like this, so I am trying to get work with a 35 hour week.

I am 35 and have no children.  This does not bother me, because I know I would lose my job if I was out sick with pregnancy related illnesses.  Also, the last few jobs would not pay sick leave.  It is nearly easier not to get pregnant, and keep a regular job, than to get pregnant and be worrying about 'what if I get sick & can't go to work'.


----------



## gipimann (25 Aug 2007)

The conditions for employment usually state what the working week is (33.5hrs, 34.5hrs etc) along with the salary.   This information is part of the application form for most public service jobs.

The former health boards had different working hours (including different lunch hours) for clerical staff, although the pay is standard. I work in the HSE in the old Eastern Regional Health Authority, and my working week is shorter than a person on the same grade in another part of the country. In turn, they get more annual leave than I do.

It's part of the amalgamation of the health boards into the HSE which has yet to be sorted. You may find that, as new HSE staff, your conditions are different to existing (former Health Board) staff.

As an earlier poster says, don't worry too much until you're actually recruited and find out where you'll be assigned.


----------



## Joe1234 (26 Aug 2007)

buzybee said:


> I know I would lose my job if I was out sick with pregnancy related illnesses.



I thought employers were obliged, by law to ensure that pregnant women are not on any less favourable terms than their non pregnant collegues.  Although I am no expert in labour law, I don't think you could lose your job as a result of a pregnancy related illness.


----------



## themetunegal (27 Aug 2007)

_'The reason I would not like the 8-4 hrs, is because I have put a lot of effort into my career with further study etc. If I wanted work with 8-4 hours, I would have left school after Inter cert and would have gone into a factory.'_

What a small-minded view of the working world! Did it ever occur to you that some people choose to work from 8-4 - commuters, people with various childcare arrangments, people that attend evening courses etc. 

I wish you all the very best with your 'career'.... I can't see you getting too far with that attitude!


----------



## TheBlock (27 Aug 2007)

buzybee said:


> The reason I would not like the 8-4 hrs, is because I have put a lot of effort into my career with further study etc. If I wanted work with 8-4 hours, I would have left school after Inter cert and would have gone into a factory.
> 
> Instead, I studied hard for 6 hons in my leaving cert, then studied business in college, then did accountancy exams part time. I feel that the effort and money I have put into my career, should be grounds for getting a job with reasonable start times. For the past 2 yrs I have been doing contract work, trying to build my experience further.
> 
> ...


 
Are you suggesting people who start work 1 hour earlier than you did not put any effort into their "Career"?


----------



## buzybee (27 Aug 2007)

I am suggesting that people who start work earlier either:

1. put effort into their career, and are well rewarded  OR

2. put little effort into further study & still have adequate pay.


In some of my previous jobs, I had neither.  I put effort into my career but still only got a salary of early to mid 20s.

This govt. job I was asking about, pays low for a good few years, so it is not like I will be picking nice hours & having a good salary to boot.

I'm sure if the posters had to pay a mortgage & support themselves completely out of this money(with no live in partner/spouse), they would change their tune.


----------



## Vanilla (27 Aug 2007)

I'm a solicitor. I did a law degree, a masters then an apprenticeship with more exams over three years to qualify. It still doesn't make me any better or worse than any factory worker or anyone else. I really dislike the idea of your job conferring 'status'. Be that as it may, I know plenty of colleagues in this and people in other professions who work odd hours and wouldn't consider that to be strange. People work odd hours for reasons of commute, or family or just for their lifestyle.


----------



## bigchicken (27 Aug 2007)

buzybee said:


> I am suggesting that people who start work earlier either:
> 
> 1. put effort into their career, and are well rewarded OR
> 
> ...


 
Are you for real? What has a persons hours of work got to do with anything?


----------



## themetunegal (27 Aug 2007)

_I am suggesting that people who start work earlier either:_

_1. put effort into their career, and are well rewarded OR_

_2. put little effort into further study & still have adequate pay._



Buzybee,

I find your remarks astonishing. If you are 35, still earning 25-30k p.a. and are so well qualified... you should be looking to yourself for the answers to your non-progression within a career. Your statement as quoted above is absolute nonsense. Ridiculous comments about the time at which individuals start work have no relevance. I am ten years your junior, with similar qualifications and I am earning over twice your current salary - those that want to succeed will! 

_I'm sure if the posters had to pay a mortgage & support themselves completely out of this money(with no live in partner/spouse), they would change their tune._

Nonsense about having live in partners / husbands paying the mortgage etc only highlight your ignorance. The suggestion that the posters below (myself included) cannot support themselves without the help of partners / spouses cries of begrudgery and small mindedness. 

I hope the HSE realise what a liability they are acquiring. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at your PMDS interviews in years to come!! 

Good luck!


----------



## micheller (27 Aug 2007)

I'm also finding it very odd how you are connecting working hours to education and job status.

I have now had 4 jobs over 11years in multi nationals in north east.
All bar one started at 8am (the other started at 7.30). I think 8am is quite 'normal' in larger companies.

When looking to progress my career, I find the most important thing is to consistently move to roles of more learning/ responsibility and the salary follows. Some roles have better perks than others (hours etc.), but that's just life....


----------



## buzybee (27 Aug 2007)

I feel I have put in the effort and hours & have not got the compensation.

I do not begrudge other people getting on well, however I am trying to do my best, to have a good work life balance.

I feel that some people begrudge me, including some of the posters above. They do not seem to like the idea of someone wanting regular hours, even though the someone (me) is prepared to accept a relatively low salary for this. They seem to begrudge a person wanting to get favourable conditions of work, even if a person has had unfavourable conditions for the past 15 years. I have always met targets etc, & done well at work, however I have always found it hard to get salary increases. The owner would say they can't afford to pay me more, and I would not fight for more money. I have tried to move jobs to increase my salary to something reasonable, and I have developed my experience.

I would just be happy to be in a place where I felt I didn't have to fight for my 2% salary increase every year. I try to get about 2 or 3% every year to cover the cost of inflation, but it doesn't always work like this.


----------



## buzybee (27 Aug 2007)

Themetunegal, 

You think I am small minded to state that it is difficult to afford a house & mortgage alone, yet YOU have not had that problem.

See below with WE have bought...

Hello! 

I live in this estate and cannot recommend it highly enough. The houses are beautiful, the finish very good and to top it off, the builders are really nice and obliging! 

God, I sound like an advert for the place  I'm not connected with the builders at all. 

We put a deposit down last August but due to the slowdown weren't able to sell our house and the builders were really sound about holding the house for us etc - we moved in in January.

We bought an Ash house backing onto the farm and it is fantastic not to have anyone overlooking you. The estate is really quiet (probably because there are only about 6 houses occupied!) and the area is really good.

Please feel free to PM me if you want any more info etc.

Themetunegal.


----------



## micmclo (27 Aug 2007)

You're a part qualified accountant and you're earn less than 30K?
I'm far younger than you and earn more than that working in a similar field, not double but not far off.
I'd say a lot of factory workers working regular hours earn more than this since you brought that up.

Pick up the Irish Independant on a Thursday and you'll see over 50 jobs offering more than this.
And if you won't fight for what you're worth then nonone else will do it for you.

This whole post screams of the attitude that the world owes you a living.
By the way, most people reading this will be having more success in their careers than you so I doubt anyone is begrudging you.


----------



## themetunegal (27 Aug 2007)

Buzybee,

If you bothered to read my post: '_Nonsense about having live in partners / husbands paying the mortgage etc only highlight your ignorance. The suggestion that the posters below (myself included) cannot support themselves without the help of partners / spouses cries of begrudgery and small mindedness'_, you would have noticed that at no point did I claim to be currently living in a property that I had purchased on my own or anything to that effect. 

Although I have purchased property with my husband, I previously had a property for a number of years on my own, and managed without problem to support myself and a mortgage. 

Even if I had never owned a property on my own, I would still find your remarks about spouses / partners supporting mortgages nonsensical. 

I would suggest that you read some guidelines regarding etiquette for email / posting on discussion forums where the use of capital letters is indicative of shouting.


----------



## buzybee (27 Aug 2007)

If I thought the world owes me a living I would not work hard & try to get relevant experience etc.

I am based in the West of Ireland, where jobs pay a bit lower than Dublin.

I have spoken to agencies & have tried to get relevant experience etc.  I have looked around, but work in the office/accounts sector will not pay brilliantly unless your experience is very good etc.


----------



## diarmuidc (27 Aug 2007)

buzybee said:


> The reason I would not like the 8-4 hrs, is because I have put a lot of effort into my career with further study etc.  If I wanted work with 8-4 hours, I would have left school after Inter cert and would have gone into a factory.


What in gods name does an 8-4 day have to do with your education? You do realise that in many countries of continental Europe that is the standard working hours?


----------



## batty (27 Aug 2007)

8 a.m is the normal start time in my Company, although many of my colleagues start work at 7.30 a.m. (although finish time is 5 - 5.30ish).

As other posters have said, many people would prefer 8-4 over 9.5.  maybe when you actually start the job you could swap with  a colleague if you're given 8-4 hours?


----------



## nelly (27 Aug 2007)

only coming to this thread - wow  you seem like you may be most well balanced person in the world - a chip on each shoulder? firstly the qualification = type of hours rubbish and the deciding not to bother having chidren to fit into your career and suit employers? 
I truely am genuinely am astonished at your views on life.


----------



## buzybee (27 Aug 2007)

Of course Nelly,

If I (and others like me) decided to have a few children, & give up work or go part time  there would be less taxes paid and less funds to subsidise all the women who do have children.


Nelly wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Margie* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=369664#post369664 
_That's exactly my point. I really feel that you've hit the point there. It's all about retaining key staff members like myself._


that may be your point but the reality is that folks are in business to make money not provide people with nice jobs with wonderful perks. 

as for retaining key members of staff - i think providing pension contribution to a certain % for all staff would be a better stab at retaining employees than offering mat benefits as they would apply to all, and as this seems to be the first time maternity leave has been requested 

Margie - no offence but your not the first person to have state mat and not be sibsidised to the tune of your origional wages and you won't be the last.


----------



## Bazoo (27 Aug 2007)

buzybee said:


> Of course Nelly,
> 
> * If I (and others like me) decided to have a few children, & give up work or go part time  there would be less taxes paid and less funds to subsidise all the women who do have children*.
> 
> ...



So do you think it would be better for women to stop having children to suit their employers? What kind of person are you at all. if you didn't have 92 posts I would seriously think you were just someone on here taking the mick.


----------



## micheller (28 Aug 2007)

Edited


----------



## nelly (28 Aug 2007)

sorry it seems not to be a question of a chip on shoulder but rather the weight of world.


----------



## buzybee (28 Aug 2007)

Nelly,

You must not be very confident in yourself making sarcastic one liner remarks.  In all you have, you must not be very happy.

In spite of all that has happened to me, I remain a nice person, and I have confidence in myself.  I don't feel the need to ridicule other peoples choices, yet you and other posters have ridiculed my choices.


----------



## nelly (28 Aug 2007)

buzybee said:


> Nelly,
> You must not be very confident in yourself making sarcastic one liner remarks.  In all you have, you must not be very happy.


you are wrong.


buzybee said:


> In spite of all that has happened to me, I remain a nice person, and I have confidence in myself.


I question if you actually are confident, because if you are/were there seems to be no reason why with your qualifications (a qualified accountant ?) that you should not be earning a much higher wage right after conferring- unless you did not ask for it  or want to go out and set up your own business etc. 


buzybee said:


> I don't feel the need to ridicule other peoples choices, yet you and other posters have ridiculed my choices.


not your choices but the thought process involved in coming to them.


----------



## Caveat (28 Aug 2007)

This is getting out of hand.

The original question(s), no matter how fanciful or whatever related to choices/options for hours of work. These queries have become lost in various tangents.

Ostensibly, I don't think it is extraordinary to request alternative working hours and if it suits both employee and employer - fine.

The reasons (presumed or otherwise) for having an expectation to have this arrangement -  is a different story.


----------

