# Abolish statutory and exgratia redundancy payments



## Brendan Burgess

I have never really understood why people get payments when they are made redundant. 

It is a joke that the Clare plant is paying the highest wages in the World and to survive as a company they have to pay off the employees whose salaries are the main reason for the plant to close. Not only do they have to pay their share of the statutory redundancy, they are under pressure to pay extra. I think it has been acknowledged that they have been a great employer and a great contributor to the Irish economy over the years. We should be thanking them for their contribution not penalising them for ending it.


Someone has a well paid job for 25 years gets a year's salary tax free on leaving that job. Someone who has been unemployed for 25 years gets nothing. 

The state can't afford it and so should stop paying statutory redundancy payments.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

In particular, there should be absolutely no payments to the 17,000 public servants who lose their jobs. There is no basis for this and we simply do not have the money to do so.

The government should not have to borrow a huge amount of money now to cut spending in the long term.

Brendan


----------



## Deiseblue

Brendan said:


> In particular, there should be absolutely no payments to the 17,000 public servants who lose their jobs. There is no basis for this and we simply do not have the money to do so.
> 
> The government should not have to borrow a huge amount of money now to cut spending in the long term.
> 
> Brendan


Thats not going to happen.
The 17,000 jobs are going to go by a process of natural wastage and an incentivised early retirement package over a two year period.
Those who have reached retirement age will receive a pension based on their years of service and a lump sum equivalent to 1.5 times their final years salary , those who avail of early retirement will again get a pension based on years of service plus 10% of their lump sum with the balance payable on attaining what would have been their usual retirement age


----------



## VOR

Statutory redundancy should be abolished only after an insurance scheme is put in place. This should be compulsory for all employees and deducted at source in to a national fund. It would also be payable by the employee either by way of increased PRSI or perhaps as a new deduction. 
It could then pay out 60%-75% of your salary while unemployed for a specific period.
Germany operates a similar system http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/working.html

Without this I could not agree to abolishing redundancy payments.


----------



## TheBlock

VOR said:


> It could then pay out 75% of your salary while unemployed.


 
I assume this is subject to either/both a maximum payout plus a defined period of benifit. Would this be payable along side unemployment benifits already payable?


----------



## Purple

Why not just make income protection insurance tax deductable. Then people can take responsibility for their own lives and pretend they are adults?
If you don’t want to buy the insurance fine; then you get the dole (which should be half what it is now).


----------



## canicemcavoy

The factory has been open 40 years. It's safe to say there are probably 60-year-old men working for this company who have ever only worked in industrial diamond manufacturing. As far as I'm aware, there are no other such companies in Ireland now, and if there were, I'm pretty sure that they're not hiring. And, if they were, probably wouldn't be hiring 60 year old men.

The idea that they should be laid off with absolutely no payments seems to be based on some Norman Tebbit-like notion that these men will be on a bike to a new job anytime soon.


----------



## Purple

canicemcavoy said:


> The factory has been open 40 years. It's safe to say there are probably 60-year-old men working for this company who have ever only worked in industrial diamond manufacturing. As far as I'm aware, there are no other such companies in Ireland now, and if there were, I'm pretty sure that they're not hiring. And, if they were, probably wouldn't be hiring 60 year old men.
> 
> The idea that they should be laid off with absolutely no payments seems to be based on some Norman Tebbit-like notion that these men will be on a bike to a new job anytime soon.



It is also reasonable to suggest that the contract that existed between the employer and the employee was for X hours a week for Y amount of money. Each time the employer paid the employee the slate was cleared. Therefore no moral liability exists between the two parties. If there is some social responsibility them the burden for this lies with the state. The only social burden that the employer bears is to operate within the law and pay their taxes. 
If an employee has worked there for 40 years and is now 60 it is not unreasonable to expect that they have made (or should have made) provision for their future. If someone chooses to live hand-to-mouth for 40 years that’s their own problem.  

I actually feel that PS/CS staff who may be laid off should be paid redundency as they entered a job in which there was an expectation that they would never end up out of work. In their case it was reasonable that they should not make provision for having no/reduced income.


----------



## VOR

Brendan said:


> It is a joke that the Limerick plant is paying the highest wages in the World and to survive as a company they have to pay off the employees whose salaries are the main reason for the plant to close.


 
Can I point out that if you are referring to the closure yesterday in Shannon, this was in Clare and not Limerick. Unless, of course, you were referring to Dell.


----------



## DerKaiser

Lets not lose the run of ourselves here.  I never thought it would come to this but I'm starting to believe that a lot of people want to completely thread on the rights of workers.

There is absolutelty nothing wrong with providing pensions and other benefits to workers in their contracts.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with people who have worked for 25 years getting lump sum redundancy if they are made unemployed through no fault of their own.

In the same way employees have to recognise that businesses need to pay wages and bonuses according to their ability to make a profit, employers have to recognise that loyal workers should have certain rights and this is a benefit to everyone.

Unions may be overzealous in protecting unjusifiably high wages at times but screwing workers is not a rational antidote to this.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Kaiser

No one is treading on anyone's rights. 

I am simply questioning why this is paid?  It is not a right other than we have made it a right. But why should it be a right? 

A company should pay its workers well while they are working. They should not pay them for not working.

Brendan


----------



## canicemcavoy

DerKaiser said:


> Lets not lose the run of ourselves here. I never thought it would come to this but I'm starting to believe that a lot of people want to completely thread on the rights of workers.
> 
> There is absolutelty nothing wrong with providing pensions and other benefits to workers in their contracts. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people who have worked for 25 years getting lump sum redundancy if they are made unemployed through no fault of their own.
> 
> In the same way employees have to recognise that businesses need to pay wages and bonuses according to their ability to make a profit, employers have to recognise that loyal workers should have certain rights and this is a benefit to everyone.
> 
> Unions may be overzealous in protecting unjusifiably high wages at times but screwing workers is not a rational antidote to this.


 
+1

There's always a happy medium between Chicago Boys-style slash and burn capitalism, and stifling protectionism. 

There's seems to be a huge overlap between those who were the main cheer-leaders for the unsustainable bubble and its tax revenues and those who now want to implement unfair cuts on the most vulnerable.


----------



## Lilly2099

Brendan said:


> Someone has a well paid job for 25 years gets a year's salary tax free on leaving that job. Someone who has been unemployed for 25 years gets nothing. The state can't afford it and so should stop paying statutory redundancy payments.


 
The state only pay the value of 60% of these payments therough refunding the companies and only pay on the stat amount. its rather funny you say this it almost makes me laugh someone who has been working for 25 years has actually been paying taxes to support that person who has been unemployed for 25 years! Why would an unemployed person be owed anything?


----------



## canicemcavoy

Brendan said:


> It is not a right other than we have made it a right.


 
You might as well say this of all rights; is there a concept of natural rights? We're in the area of AskAboutPhilosophy there!

Redundancy payments, to me, are simply there to tide someone over until their next job and help clear some debts or, morbidly, to help someone who is, realistically, is in their 50s/60s, was in a single specialised industry since their youth, and never going to work again.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> those who now want to implement unfair cuts on the most vulnerable.


 
The key point which people are missing here is that if there are not huge cuts, we will go bankrupt and the most vulnerable will not get any social welfare payments, the pensioners will get no pensions and the hospitals will close. 

Cutting social welfare and public service salaries and redundancy payments is protecting the most vulnerable.


----------



## Padraigb

I think there is more to employment than an exchange of hours of labour for an amount of money. It is a relationship between persons, and it should involve loyalty and looking after the best interests of the other party. Good employers and good employees operate that way, without even having to think about it. The rest might need to be directed to do the decent thing.


----------



## z109

Statutory redundancy is a paid-for insurance payment. Like Jobseekers Benefit, it is paid in the form of employer's PRSI. This makes it a right in my book, much like JB. The government some years ago, IIRC, increased the number of statutory weeks per year. As I recall, they did this without increasing the employer PRSI contribution, much like they have increased JB payments without any concomitant increase in funding. If the government has underestimated the actuarial risk of an employment shock and the social insurance fund is going to be inadequate to cover these payments that is a different issue ("if", who am I kidding? This government couldn't estimate the number of legs on a donkey).


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Yog



> As I recall, they did this without increasing the employer PRSI contribution, much like they have increased JB payments without any concomitant increase in funding.



It is called insurance, but it's not really insurance. There is no attempt to relate the premium to the claim. A person earning €200k pays a much higher premium than a person earning €36,000, but they get exactly the same benefits. 

And if it's insurance, people should have the option of paying it or not.

The government removed the cap on employers' prsi some years ago which was a huge increase in the cost to employers. I don't recall any benefits being increased at the time.

Brendan


----------



## DerKaiser

Brendan said:


> A company should pay its workers well while they are working. They should not pay them for not working.
> 
> Brendan


 
As in when they are receipt of a pension in retirement?  Or sick leave?  Or long term disability?


----------



## jack2009

Padraigb said:


> I think there is more to employment than an exchange of hours of labour for an amount of money. It is a relationship between persons, and it should involve loyalty and looking after the best interests of the other party. Good employers and good employees operate that way, without even having to think about it. The rest might need to be directed to do the decent thing.


 
I agree with this, if a company decides to close and has surplus funds then the surplus funds should be split between the stakeholders as they are the people who made the surplus in the first place.

Similiarily, there have been several stories of companies being involved in substantial deals/sales that created a serious amount of cash. In many of these cases the employer was recognised the efforts of its staff by paying huge bonuses as a way of saying "thank you".


----------



## z109

Brendan said:


> Hi Yog
> It is called insurance, but it's not really insurance. There is no attempt to relate the premium to the claim. A person earning €200k pays a much higher premium than a person earning €36,000, but they get exactly the same benefits.


Well, the maximum is €600 a week, I think, but it is a tax-free payment, so the person on 200k a year gets a greater benefit from the tax-free status (assuming they are not let go in January/February!). No?

On a risk-basis, high earners are surely more risky than low earners of getting the chop when a business downturn occurs, so a risk weighting should apply? (Okay, I'm being cheeky here)



> And if it's insurance, people should have the option of paying it or not.


Nah, if you want to opt out of social insurance, become self-employed. Half the male working population has already done so. Should people be able to opt out of the social insurance and even the tax system altogether then?



> The government removed the cap on employers' prsi some years ago which was a huge increase in the cost to employers. I don't recall any benefits being increased at the time.


Ah, so they did increase funding to pay for higher dole, maternity pay, redundancy pay! (These are the benefits that were increased).


----------



## canicemcavoy

Brendan said:


> It is called insurance, but it's not really insurance. There is no attempt to relate the premium to the claim. A person earning €200k pays a much higher premium than a person earning €36,000, but they get exactly the same benefits.


 
They call it insurance, but it's really just a tax by another name. I presume the only point of it is to make the tax system more confusing and cover up the fact it's another stealth tax. For PR reasons, it's better for a government to have a seemingly low standard rate of income tax, then add on a series of stealth taxes, then simply wrap it up in one single income tax.


----------



## Padraigb

Brendan said:


> It is called insurance, but it's not really insurance. There is no attempt to relate the premium to the claim...



It's another form of community rating -- just as with health insurance there is no effort to link any one person's premium with the risk that person represents.


----------



## callybags

A good possible consequence of this would be that employees of companies looking for pay cuts or changes in work practices would not be as determined to hold fast with the knowledge that if the company decides to close or relocate they would be in for a large redundancy payment.

I don't agree that redundancy is some kind of loyalty payment.


----------



## Purple

I am not against redundancy payments but I see no reason why the cost should be borne by the employer since the employee and the employer have paid considerable amounts of tax each week/month to finance the social insurance.


----------



## z104

It's a goodwill payment for the many years of loyalty the person has shown the company. It encourages an employeee to stay with a company instead of job hopping to better paying employers in the good times. ( remember those) 

Loyalty works both ways and I think it's a disgrace that element 6 (formerly de Beers company) is only paying one weeks wage for every year of service.


----------



## VOR

Niallers said:


> Loyalty works both ways and I think it's a disgrace that element 6 (formerly de Beers company) is only paying one weeks wage for every year of service.


 
It's worse than that. They are paying 1 week to a maximum of 19 years. So long term servants will get a lot less then 1 week a year.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

DerKaiser said:


> As in when they are receipt of a pension in retirement?  Or sick leave?  Or long term disability?



Absolutely, the employer should not be paying for these. 

These are a luxury which employers paid when they were profitable and making money. The employers, including the biggest employer, cannot afford to pay them anymore. 

Where there is a contractual obligation as in the case of pensions, they should be continued or they should consult with workers about reducing them.

But we are talking about emergency measures to ensure our survival as a nation here.

Brendan


----------



## DerKaiser

Brendan said:


> But we are talking about emergency measures to ensure our survival as a nation here.
> 
> Brendan


 
There is some merit in taking the position that the state should not be paying social welfare to people who have recently had large lump sum redundancies as this constitutes some form of double payment when we can barely afford to make the minimum payments.

I do believe, however, that pensions, disability benefits and redundancies are something a large employer can offer.  

Small enterprises could look at contracts excluding these benefits and, dar I say it, maternity benefit.  Such benefits could easily put a small enterpise under serious strain so there could be grounds for exempting them from anything other than pay for hours worked


----------



## Purple

DerKaiser said:


> Small enterprises could look at contracts excluding these benefits and, dar I say it, maternity benefit.  Such benefits could easily put a small enterpise under serious strain so there could be grounds for exempting them from anything other than pay for hours worked


 But small employers are alrteady paying for them; it's called employers PRSI. The question for non-state companies is should they pay for them twice!


----------



## Ghodadaba

Brendan said:


> I have never really understood why people get payments when they are made redundant.


 
I'm utterly speechless.... Are you serious?


----------



## Ghodadaba

Brendan said:


> In particular, there should be absolutely no payments to the 17,000 public servants who lose their jobs. There is no basis for this and we simply do not have the money to do so.
> 
> The government should not have to borrow a huge amount of money now to cut spending in the long term.
> 
> Brendan


 

I think An Bord Snip suggested that this number should be achieved through natural wastage and an incentivised retirement scheme, which wouldn't require any redundancy payout.

But where redundancies are compulsory, of course there should be redundancy. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise, and that is not an ideological assertion. It is purely practicality and equity.

Redundancy is compensation to someone who has had their contract of employment terminated. What is so obscene about that? You don't have to be a raving lefty to believe that it is just and appropriate for someone to be compensated after having their financial means removed on a uni-lateral basis.

The state has a duty to provide reasonable protection to people who are employed. That is a cornerstone of the type of society we have chosen to live in. When the state decides it can no longer provide that protection, it is only fair the worker receives some compensation.

Even if the state abolishes redundancy payments, it will still have to financially provide for the welfare of the individual anyway. It is a false economy to think we can abolish state redundancy payments, and then stick our heads in the sand and think we have washed our hands of all financial responsibility for that person when they are left with nothing.


----------



## canicemcavoy

Brendan said:


> These are a luxury which employers paid when they were profitable and making money. The employers, including the biggest employer, cannot afford to pay them anymore.


 
This is based on the assumption of course that no employers are now making money, which is not the case.

What about the situation where a very profitable company closes an Irish operation in order to move it to a third-world country and be even more profitable?


----------



## Purple

canicemcavoy said:


> What about the situation where a very profitable company closes an Irish operation in order to move it to a third-world country and be even more profitable?


Just like they closed an operation somewhere else to move here in the first place?
The action of moving from rich to poor countries is the biggest up-side of international capitalism (from a moral point of view) as it gives others the same chances that we had. Why punish a company for doing this?


----------



## canicemcavoy

Purple said:


> Just like they closed an operation somewhere else to move here in the first place?
> The action of moving from rich to poor countries is the biggest up-side of international capitalism (from a moral point of view) as it gives others the same chances that we had. Why punish a company for doing this?


 
Sorry, but I wasn't arguing against that. I was arguing against the opinion that it's only non-profitable companies that are closing down and there therefore they have no money to fund redundancy payments.


----------



## Ghodadaba

Purple said:


> Just like they closed an operation somewhere else to move here in the first place?
> The action of moving from rich to poor countries is the biggest up-side of international capitalism (from a moral point of view) as it gives others the same chances that we had. Why punish a company for doing this?


 
It isn't punishment for the company, it is compensation for the employee who has been turfed out on their ear. It doesn't have to be an emotional argument, but it is proper and right that the employee is comensated for losing their job....


----------



## callybags

canicemcavoy said:


> What about the situation where a very profitable company closes an Irish operation in order to move it to a third-world country and be even more profitable?


 
Should an employee who leaves a company for a better paid job be made compensate the company for inconvenience and the expense of recruiting somebody else?


----------



## Mpsox

There are a number of valid reasons why an employer would and should pay redundancy. 
Firstly is on grounds of industrial relations to allow for a smooth and seemless removal of excess/unrequired staff from an organisation. It's a simple fact of life that trade unions or even unrepresented staff are not simply going to say "thanks, where's my reference?" and ride off peacefully into the sunset without a redundancy payment. Employers may not like it, but this is the real world

Secondly, by making it a cost for employers to let staff go, it actually protects jobs and prevents employers from simply having a knee jerk reaction to whatever issue is around and axing staff. It forces employers to make a more rational and reasoned financial descision when contemplating redundancy. If there was no redundancy in Ireland, statutory or ex gratia, I've no doubt unemployment would be much higher and the costs to the state would be far higher then they currently are.

Not every company has gone bust simply because of the credit crunch. many have gone bust because their owners were incompetent eejits who didn't know their backside from their elbow. Is it fair that the staff should not just loose their job but also not get redundancy because their employer was a buffoon


I agree there is an arguement for companies which are financially viable not being able to claim the 60% back and that the state should only get involved when a company is in liquidation. 

Have we learnt nothing from the last 18 months, greed got us all into this mess, greed from employers is not going to get us out of it.


----------



## orka

Ghodadaba said:


> It isn't punishment for the company, it is compensation for the employee who has been turfed out on their ear. It doesn't have to be an emotional argument, but it is proper and right that the employee is comensated for losing their job....


I agree with callybags - it's a two-way street.  I have a contract with my employer which gives a notice period of 3 months to both sides - that's what I and they signed up to - either of us can say 'good luck and thanks' with 3 months notice.  Them letting me go unexpectedly would be a pain in the ass for me but me leaving them unexpectedly would be a pain in the ass for them too - but neither side expects compensation - why would we?  Mature adults signed up to a contract which has been honoured in full and now we're walking away.  Most empoyment contracts don't guarantee a job for life.



Mpsox said:


> greed from employers is not going to get us out of it.


 Greed (and selfishness) from employees and soon-to-be-ex-employees is a lot more prevalent and damaging at the moment...


----------



## canicemcavoy

callybags said:


> Should an employee who leaves a company for a better paid job be made compensate the company for inconvenience and the expense of recruiting somebody else?


 
Anything can be taken to a logical conclusion; I'm sure some will argue it's crazy that a company pays a good salary to an employee and then is expected to pay for their electricity, heating, a roof over their heads and paid holidays. ("It's political correctness gone mad.")

The only point I'm making here is that there _are_ companies making profits. Therefore, the justification that companies should not pay redundancy because none are making profits does not hold up.


----------



## Purple

canicemcavoy said:


> The only point I'm making here is that there _are_ companies making profits. Therefore, the justification that companies should not pay redundancy because none are making profits does not hold up.


What about the point that they have already paid for it through employers PRSI?


----------



## canicemcavoy

Purple said:


> What about the point that they have already paid for it through employers PRSI?


 
Well, they can apply for a 60% rebate:

http://www.entemp.ie/employment/redundancy/guidelines.htm


----------



## Purple

canicemcavoy said:


> Well, they can apply for a 60% rebate:



Is that just for the statutory part?


----------



## canicemcavoy

Purple said:


> Is that just for the statutory part?


 
I'm guessing so:



> An employer who has paid his/her employee their *correct* statutory redundancy lump sum


----------



## JoeB

Ghodadaba said:


> Redundancy is compensation to someone who has had their contract of employment terminated. What is so obscene about that? You don't have to be a raving lefty to believe that it is just and appropriate for someone to be compensated after having their financial means removed on a uni-lateral basis.



Yes, but employees don't compensate employers when they choose to leave the job.. so this is a double standard.


I agree that redundancy can be a problem, especially for small companies. As is maternity leave and all other forced payments that employers must make to employees who aren't working..

I think that the most employees should expect is honest pay for honest hours worked. I think holiday pay is acceptable but redundancy and maternity is questionable.. I think if the government wants men and women to be able to take time off and continue to get paid after choosing to have a baby then the government should pay for it, not the employer..


----------



## ontour

There should not be an obligation to provide 'money for nothing'.  There should be an expectation from both sides, employee and employer, of an acceptable notice period of cessation of employment based on role and tenure.  It should protect employees from finding out today that they are losing their job and will not be earning money tomorrow.  
In the same way that an important employee may be expected to give 3 months notice of departure, the company should also give that employee the same notice of redundancy, whether or not they expect or need the employee to work during this time.  It should be an obligation on the company to have the necessary funds to cover this should the need to make people redundant arise at any time. 

Similar principle to that applied to renting and tenancy in Ireland.


----------



## JoeRoberts

I think a possible middle ground proposal would be to leave statutoy redundancy in place but abolish the government 60% rebate. This saves the Govt money and employers will not be so quick to let people go at the first sign of a drop in business.


----------



## Sunny

JoeRoberts said:


> I think a possible middle ground proposal would be to leave statutoy redundancy in place but abolish the government 60% rebate. This saves the Govt money and employers will not be so quick to let people go at the first sign of a drop in business.


 
No they will still let people go but will just pay the statutory amount. I have no problem with people getting redundancy. I would actually increase the amount that people can get tax free but at the same time, I would stop people who have received large payments from getting access to the job seekers benefit allowance and other social welfare benefits. For example at the moment, there is only a 1 week disqualification period for someone who got a redundancy sum of greater than €50,000 and up to 9 weeks for someone gets a payment of €90,000+. Why not increase these to 12 months and 18 months respectively or even more?


----------



## Lilia

Tell that to the hundreds of Waterford Crystal workers who were unceremoneously sacked a few months ago.  The majority of whom will never get another job of a similar pay and have mortages, debt, tennagers in college and families to feed.  The same people who took all their hard earned pay related bonuses, Christmas bonuses, profit share bonsus for the last 30 years as shares in Waterford Wedgewood - shares that were meant to put their kids through college and see them into their retirement which are not worth ZERO.  Tell it to the 60 year old guy who was about to face into a reasonable retirement with his shares and his long paid for pension which is now worth possibly 20% to 30% of what it should be.  The guy who hasn't a hope of getting a job in this country because all he knows is one skill which is no longer required.  

ITs somewhat funny but mostly nausiating to hear that people think that these hard working men and women should be thrown on the scrap heap with no statutory redundancy, no ex-gratia payments - no pension.  It must be a nice little world where you live !


----------



## Kine

Lilia said:


> The same people who took all their hard earned pay related bonuses, Christmas bonuses, profit share bonsus for the last 30 years as shares in Waterford Wedgewood - shares that were meant to put their kids through college and see them into their retirement which are not worth ZERO.


 
Where has anyone ever said investing in shares was risk-free? You put all of your eggs in one basket and unfortunately that's what happens. My heart goes out to anyone who has lost their investments etc, but unfortunately there's risks involved in everything investment related.


----------



## Purple

Lilia said:


> Tell that to the hundreds of Waterford Crystal workers who were unceremoneously sacked a few months ago.  The majority of whom will never get another job of a similar pay and have mortages, debt, tennagers in college and families to feed.  The same people who took all their hard earned pay related bonuses, Christmas bonuses, profit share bonsus for the last 30 years as shares in Waterford Wedgewood - shares that were meant to put their kids through college and see them into their retirement which are not worth ZERO.  Tell it to the 60 year old guy who was about to face into a reasonable retirement with his shares and his long paid for pension which is now worth possibly 20% to 30% of what it should be.  The guy who hasn't a hope of getting a job in this country because all he knows is one skill which is no longer required.
> 
> ITs somewhat funny but mostly nausiating to hear that people think that these hard working men and women should be thrown on the scrap heap with no statutory redundancy, no ex-gratia payments - no pension.  It must be a nice little world where you live !



I take it that you are talking about the same Waterford Crystal workers who were paid massive wages throughout the 70’s and 80’s and into the 90’s. The same ones who resisted modernisation and change with strikes and the threat of strikes? Waterford Crystal was a baldy run company making a product that nobody wanted. They had 20 years to sort themselves out and they blew it. They was doomed. 

Bonuses may have been paid in shares (a common practice in PLC’s) but there was nothing forcing anyone to keep those shares. Just like every other share owner if they kept them they have lost their shirt. If they were close to retirement and kept their retirement money in shares then they were stupid and have nobody to blame but themselves. That’s not to say they don’t deserve sympathy but that’s about it. The collapse of the company pension fund is an entirely different thing.


----------



## Lilia

Purple said:


> I take it that you are talking about the same Waterford Crystal workers who were paid massive wages throughout the 70’s and 80’s and into the 90’s. The same ones who resisted modernisation and change with strikes and the threat of strikes? Waterford Crystal was a baldy run company making a product that nobody wanted. They had 20 years to sort themselves out and they blew it. They was doomed.
> 
> Bonuses may have been paid in shares (a common practice in PLC’s) but there was nothing forcing anyone to keep those shares. Just like every other share owner if they kept them they have lost their shirt. If they were close to retirement and kept their retirement money in shares then they were stupid and have nobody to blame but themselves. That’s not to say they don’t deserve sympathy but that’s about it. The collapse of the company pension fund is an entirely different thing.


 
The collapse of the company was indeed due to bad management who deserve more than what they got.  It was not down to the people employed there.  Yes the cutters and blowers earned big money but that is a small percentage of the entire work force.  You are assuming that everyone keeps an eye on the stock market and is financially savvey and if not then they are stupid ! How arogant is that ?? I know for a fact that a vast majority of people, not only in WC , take shares as their bonus, trust the people who sell them like the financial "experts" who have caused this country's downfall, and are then left picking up the pieces when it all goes to the wall.  It's this arogant attitude that has the simple people of this country left in the lurch while the guilty walk away with their wallets full.  

Statutory redundancy is a right paid for by PRSI contributions from people's own paypacket.  How dare anyone suggest that this become yet another nail in the coffin for people losing their jobs through no fault of thier own.


----------



## Purple

Lilia said:


> The collapse of the company was indeed due to bad management who deserve more than what they got.  It was not down to the people employed there.


 I’d say it’s a combination of both. The management bought industrial peace in the 70’s and 80’s by giving large pay increases but didn’t develop the brand (like Newbridge Silver did)


Lilia said:


> You are assuming that everyone keeps an eye on the stock market and is financially savvey and if not then they are stupid ! How arogant is that ?? I know for a fact that a vast majority of people, not only in WC , take shares as their bonus, trust the people who sell them like the financial "experts" who have caused this country's downfall, and are then left picking up the pieces when it all goes to the wall.


 No financial advisor would advise that someone keep their investments in shares as they approach retirement. People are responsible for their own lives. 



Lilia said:


> It's this arogant attitude that has the simple people of this country left in the lurch while the guilty walk away with their wallets full.


That statement manages to be both condescending and patronising at the same time. The owners of Waterford Crystal have lost hundreds of millions attempting to keep the company afloat. The people employed there are, I would suggest, no more “simple” than you or I or do you think that people who work with their hands are all simpletons?



Lilia said:


> Statutory redundancy is a right paid for by PRSI contributions from people's own paypacket.


 It’s also paid for by the employer with PRSI contributions that are almost twice as high as those made by employees. Why should the employer have to pay for this twice?



Lilia said:


> How dare anyone suggest that this become yet another nail in the coffin for people losing their jobs through no fault of thier own.


 This is a discussion forum. It’s  also a free country. That’s why I dare.


----------



## Lilia

The employer doesn't pay all the statutory contributions. That is the point. The government pays the majority of it. about 60% So your point about the employer paying for it twice is irrelevant. 

Your point about not developing the brand since the 70s and 80s is just plain wrong. In the years from 98 through to 2002 the company made massive profits. The introduction of the designer brands like John Rocha, Jasper Conran and other American designers had a massive impact. 

The people who worked there are intelligent, normal people who have excelled at their jobs like anyone else. They are not financial experts nor do most of them check share prices every day and if you're trying to tell me that everyone who lost over a hunder thousand euro in shares when they collapsed in the space of a couple of weeks are stupid then it's you who are ignorant of how the stock market works. 

Also you are missing the point in the first place. The point is that why should people who have had so much financial hardship forced on them due to inadequate management by the so-called intelligent financial experts who managed their company so badly for so many years, be slapped down when they come to claim their last shred of hope in the form of their statutory entitlements. ? Im guessing that the people who think this have never been in this position.


----------



## Purple

Lilia said:


> The employer doesn't pay statutory contributions. That is the point. The government pays the majority of it. about 60% So your point about the employer paying for it twice is irrelevant.


 So the other 40% is irrelevant... I see. Would you feel the same way if statutory redundancy payments were reduced by 40%?



Lilia said:


> Your point about not developing the brand since the 70s and 80s is just plain wrong. In the years from 98 through to 2002 the company made massive profits. The introduction of the designer brands like John Rocha, Jasper Conran and other American designers had a massive impact.


 So you’re saying the company wasn’t badly run. I thought it was but it seems I was wrong. Oh, what about the years before and after 98 and 2002?



Lilia said:


> The people who worked there are intelligent, normal people who have excelled at their jobs like anyone else. They are not financial experts nor do most of them check share prices every day and if you're trying to tell me that everyone who lost over a hunder thousand euro in shares when they collapsed in the space of a couple of weeks are stupid then it's you who are ignorant of how the stock market works.


 If I had over a hundred thousand euro in shares you can be damned sure I’d be watching the market every day. If I had my life savings in shares when I was close to retirement then yes, I’d be very stupid. If I thought that share prices could not collapse a matter of a few weeks then I’d be ignorant of how the stock market works.



Lilia said:


> Also you are missing the point in the first place. The point is that why should people who have had so much financial hardship forced on them due to inadequate management by the so-called intelligent financial experts who managed their company so badly for so many years, be slapped down when they come to claim their last shred of hope in the form of their statutory entitlements. ?


 This is a thread about whether redundancy should be paid at all. I can see strong arguments for and against. The point I have been making is that by paying their taxes and employers PRSI the employer fulfils their social obligation. If someone needs financial support after they lose their job that burden should fall on the state. The general thrust of the thread is can the government afford to pay this in the current circumstances.  


Lilia said:


> Im guessing that the people who think this have never been in this position.


 I’ve lost money because of stupid and/or high risk investments but I knew I was gambling so I won’t moan about it.
It amazes me how people can make bad decisions and refuse to take responsibility for them. 

As I said before, the collapse of the pension fund is an entirely different matter.


----------



## canicemcavoy

Purple said:


> It amazes me how people can make bad decisions and refuse to take responsibility for them.


 
Like loaning billions of euros to developers at the height of a property bubble.

Oops, wrong thread.


----------



## Purple

canicemcavoy said:


> Like loaning billions of euros to developers at the height of a property bubble.



Yep


----------



## Lilia

Nobody in WC lost their jobs because of their own bad decisions and then moaned about it. They lost their jobs due to bad management which I have agreed to above and are entitled to statutory redundancy.  Can you just imagine coming into work one day and seeing the gates closed, not getting paid that week and getting no redundancy. ?  This is actually what happened to them.  Can you even open your mind to that ?  How would you pay your mortgage at the end of the month, your car loan, your kids college accomodation.  It's all very well to talk hypothetically about what the country can and can't afford but the very basic human dignity of giving you a chance to get on your feet and make some sort of financial arrangements after the massive shock is surely not one of the cutbacks we can even consider !


----------



## ajapale

Would posters agree that this thread has drifted off topic?


To return to the original question there are three elements to redundancy payments.

Statutory (State portion)
Statutory (Company portion)
ExGratia.

Since ExGratia payments are entirely at the discretion of the company I cant see how these payments could be abolished or am I missing something?


----------



## DB74

Deleted


----------



## ajapale

Would posters agree that it would easier to follow threads if posts remained on topic?

If posters want to discuss maternity leave payments in the public sector  then could they please open a new thread to do so.

The title of this thread is 

In light of the post above perhaps it should read "Abolish statutory redundancy and tax all related exgratia payments through the PAYE system"

aj
mod


----------



## orka

In a country that is borrowing €400M a week to keep up with spending, 'wants' should be cut before 'needs'. We just don't have the money to pay all items that people currently feel they are entitled to - even if they feel they have been paying for them for years. There are undoubtedly people getting redundany payments who don't really need them as they find jobs fairly quickly and/or have spending levels that can be met with their reduced income. Whereas, in theory, means tested welfare benefits should be needed by all recipients. So given a choice between cutting something that is needed by all recipients and something that is only needed by some recipients, I would abolish statutory redundancy before I would suggest any big cuts in social welfare (although cuts are needed there to).
Ex-gratia payments should be taxed through the PAYE system as well.


----------



## Lilia

Ex gratia payments are taxed.


----------

