# Career Breaks for Civil servants



## Marathon Man (9 Apr 2009)

Times are hard. We all have to cut back, tighten our belts, downsize, cost cut etc.  The following is a great example of how our wonderful Government is saving (taxpayers) money

Up to now, civil servants could take up to 5 years leave of absence without pay. Now, because of the cut backs, we're going to offer them 3 years instead of 5 and to compensate for the loss of 2 years, and to save money, we're going to pay them 1/3rd of salary or €12,500, whichever is the lesser. 

See this for info.


----------



## thedaras (9 Apr 2009)

Absolute disgrace.
Bear in mind though that some of them are "employed " but not "working"


----------



## aonfocaleile (9 Apr 2009)

Civil Servants can still take _up to_ 5 years unpaid career break, depending on length of service. To avail of the new incentivised scheme, you must commit up front to taking the full 3 years. The two schemes are seperate. In the current climate, I don't see many people wanting to avail of this to be honest. Anyone with a mortage to pay or a spouse in the private sector whose job might be less secure wouldn't be able to avail of it. Three years is too long to commit to.


----------



## liaconn (9 Apr 2009)

Its a way of cutting the public sector pay bill, which people have been screaming for. While they're on their career break, remaining public servants will take on their work load. Would you prefer they just made a load of public servants redundant, paid them statutory redundancy and then had them drawing the dole? How would that work out cheaper for the tax payers?


----------



## Firefly (9 Apr 2009)

From the link you posted..

A career break may be allowed for family reasons, other domestic purposes (e.g. care of a relative), travel abroad, *self-employment* and educational purposes. 

unreal...you can take a chance in the private sector whilst *still being paid* by the taxpayer and if it goes pear-shaped you can then go back to work in 3 years. No wonder we're in the mess we're in !


----------



## aonfocaleile (9 Apr 2009)

Yes, Firefly, you can do exactly that. Mind you, from listening to ISME over the last weeks and months, no one in their right mind would start their own business at the moment. Its unfair to say that you can take your chance in the private sector - you can't. You can take a chance on *your own* business - not the same thing.

When a similar scheme was announced by one of the building societies a few months ago, I don't remember anyone posting in outrage along the lines 'no wonder the banks are in the state they're in' 

*_awaits usual arguments re taxpayers money etc etc by posters who think the public sector don't pay any tax*_


----------



## Dreamerb (9 Apr 2009)

Funny, when PTSB introduced a similar scheme it was hailed as a creative, innovative way to reduce payroll costs during a serious downturn but still retain in the longer term the services of trained, experienced, dedicated staff. 

When the civil service does the same thing, it's a waste of taxpayers money for those lazy evil scroungers who are probably creeping round the back of the taxpayer _right now _to pick his pocket of his last shilling.


----------



## Marathon Man (9 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> Would you prefer they just made a load of public servants redundant, paid them statutory redundancy and then had them drawing the dole?


 
Now there's an idea! I'm glad *you* mentioned it.



liaconn said:


> How would that work out cheaper for the tax payers?


 
well, using a few quick back of the envelope calculations:

A civil servant on the average industrial wage, €37,000 - you won't find too many of those! - would get 3 x €12,500 while they're out on this scheme = €37,500. Previous to this they'd get nothing.

Using someone with 1 dependant and 20 years service, they'd get €19,812 statutory redundancy (using Gov. on line calculator) and they'd be entitled to jobseekers benefit, approx. €340/w = €52884 over the three years, totalling €72,696. Their salary had they stayed would have been €111,000. Thus saving €38,304 in direct payments.

Of course there is the loss of their income tax & prsi and the various levies, but they'd still be liable for some tax and prsi on their dole. However the now saved cost of servicing the balance of their public service pension would reduce the overall bill further. 

IMHO, a full cost benefit analysis should be done for all public service jobs before filling any position and definitely before any quango is created. Either outsource or scrap any that fail to make the hurdle.

..Oh....and introduce PROPER benchmarking, with measurable deliverables, and accordingly reduce salaries to private sector levels - making actuarial allowances for pension servicing too. 

Disclosure: Mrs MM is a public servant


----------



## liaconn (9 Apr 2009)

MarathonMan

You would not get jobseekers allowance if you were on a career break . That's the point I was making.


----------



## aonfocaleile (9 Apr 2009)

Nor would any public servant employed before 1995 and subsequently made redundant be entitled to jobseekers benefit. Before any consideration of a redundancy scheme, this would have to be addressed.


----------



## liaconn (9 Apr 2009)

Just to elaborate on my original point. If the Government wants to reduce the public sector pay bill they can make workers redundant and pay them redundancy and social welfare, or they can offer them an incentive to go and only come back when natural wastage will mean that there will be jobs for them to fill (as their own posts will have been abolished). Either way, the government is paying them some money towards their upkeep and the career break is probably the cheapest way to do it. As long as they reduce public sector numbers, why do you care if its in the form of career breaks or redundancies?


----------



## Ciaraella (9 Apr 2009)

Dreamerb said:


> Funny, when PTSB introduced a similar scheme it was hailed as a creative, innovative way to reduce payroll costs during a serious downturn but still retain in the longer term the services of trained, experienced, dedicated staff.
> 
> When the civil service does the same thing, it's a waste of taxpayers money for those lazy evil scroungers who are probably creeping round the back of the taxpayer _right now _to pick his pocket of his last shilling.


 

Absolutely agree, for once an innovative measure to save money, 12,500 now to save on average 90,000 wages over three years? sounds great to me. Of course you have to factor in the Tax the public servant would be paying over those three years but still a good idea I think. Of course the idea won't be given much merit because it's concerns the public service which is a dirty word at the moment.


----------



## Purple (9 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> Either way, the government is paying them some money towards their upkeep and the career break is probably the cheapest way to do it. As long as they reduce public sector numbers, why do you care if its in the form of career breaks or redundancies?


That's it in a nutshell. In the real world of political compromise I think this is an excellent idea.


----------



## Dreamerb (9 Apr 2009)

> A civil servant on the average industrial wage, €37,000 - you won't find too many of those! - would get 3 x €12,500 while they're out on this scheme = €37,500. Previous to this they'd get nothing.



So, example 1: Saving = (Salary * 3) - (1/3 salary * 3) = *Saving of  €74,000 *


> Using someone with 1 dependant and 20 years service, they'd get €19,812 statutory redundancy (using Gov. on line calculator) and they'd be entitled to jobseekers benefit, approx. €340/w = €52884 over the three years, totalling €72,696. Their salary had they stayed would have been €111,000. Thus saving €38,304 in direct payments.


Example 2: Saving = (Salary * 3) - (redundancy payment + [let's just say they stay unemployed due to the current economic conditions] (156 * 204.30) ) = €111,000 - (€24,720 + €31,870.80) = *Saving of €54,409.20*

I don't know where you got your redundancy figures from - the figure I have above is based on the redundancy caluclator on the ETE website.

We're evidently using different envelopes because I'm pretty sure that makes the first one better over the three year period envisaged.


----------



## Firefly (9 Apr 2009)

aonfocaleile said:


> When a similar scheme was announced by one of the building societies a few months ago, I don't remember anyone posting in outrage along the lines 'no wonder the banks are in the state they're in'
> 
> Point taken!


----------



## Firefly (9 Apr 2009)

Mrs Firefly works for the HSE...does this apply here anyone know?


----------



## Marathon Man (9 Apr 2009)

Dreamerb said:


> I don't know where you got your redundancy figures from - the figure I have above is based on the redundancy caluclator on the ETE website.


 
Oops 1..... I put in the wrong dates. Your figure is correct.



Dreamerb said:


> So, example 1: Saving = (Salary * 3) - (1/3 salary * 3) = *Saving of €74,000 *
> 
> Example 2: Saving = (Salary * 3) - (redundancy payment + [let's just say they stay unemployed due to the current economic conditions] (156 * 204.30) ) = €111,000 - (€24,720 + €31,870.80) = *Saving of €54,409.20*
> 
> ...


 
..Oops 2
they're redundant! They're not coming back after 3 years....and they've been done without, without replacement for 3 years. Why would you then replace them? *After 3 years, the *s*aving is €37k p.a. forever!*

wrt other posters point on PTSB, that was a private entity before, with no taxpayers money going in. I think things would be different now. ...or should be - I don't think reality has hit home with the bankers yet!


----------



## Ron Burgundy (9 Apr 2009)

Firefly said:


> Mrs Firefly works for the HSE...does this apply *here* anyone know?



On askaboutmoney.....no i'd say her HR dept might be a better bet to start off with


----------



## cork (9 Apr 2009)

WILL this career break iniatative apply in local authorities?


----------



## liaconn (9 Apr 2009)

Marathon Man said:


> Oops 1..... I put in the wrong dates. Your figure is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

You're missing the point. These people will take a 3 year career break and their posts will not be replaced. When they come back (and a lot of them won't) they will slot into vacancies arising because of retirements, people leaving etc. Its one of a package of staggered measures to reduce the numbers in the public service. It will also help management to identify necessary and non-essential posts, which jobs can actually be done by one instead of two people etc. While they are doing this, they are also reducing the pay bill for the  next three years in respect of these individuals (apart from any other measures they take). Its an efficient and humane way of getting people out. You seem to be more interested in seeing public servants suffer than seeing the public sector streamlined.


----------



## Marathon Man (9 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> You're missing the point.............Its an efficient and humane way of getting people out.


Actually, I believe it's you that's missing the point.  

From your posts, you  accept that, in the public service, there are non-essential jobs or jobs  that can be filled by one person where many do it now.  

With all the benchmarking, "initiatives", studies and various other examinations, it is now being suggested that when people volunteer to take a 3 year (semi) paid leave, we'll see if their slot is essential or not...and then they'll come back into......a slot that hasn't been filled...or maybe their old slot ...that hasn't been filled either and we're paying them while they're out!  It's not exactly a detailed logical method of root and branch identification of essential roles, is it?



liaconn said:


> You seem to be more interested in seeing public servants suffer than seeing the public sector streamlined.


I haven't suggested anything of the sort, but we've heard of streamlining the public service umpteen times before, with little or no effect - the opposite if anything.  I believe that this "initiative", while on the face of it appearing good, will merely throw good money after bad and will end up paying people to take leave, where before they weren't paid.


----------



## aonfocaleile (9 Apr 2009)

Firefly said:


> Mrs Firefly works for the HSE...does this apply here anyone know?


 
Civil Service only, for the moment at least. But if the HSE is as overstaffed as the media would have us believe, then its only a matter of time!


----------



## Complainer (10 Apr 2009)

Marathon Man said:


> A civil servant on the average industrial wage, €37,000 - you won't find too many of those! - would get 3 x €12,500 while they're out on this scheme = €37,500. Previous to this they'd get nothing.


You miss the point. Previous to this, they would probably stay in the job on full pay. So the relevant comparison on between the €12.5k and nothing, it is between the €12.5k and their full salary.


----------



## Marathon Man (10 Apr 2009)

Complainer said:


> You miss the point. Previous to this, they would probably stay in the job on full pay. So the relevant comparison on between the €12.5k and nothing, it is between the €12.5k and their full salary.


 
?????

Prior to this they could take up to 5 years leave of absence on no pay. (I presume that this option is still available.) Now they can take up to 3 years on up to €12,500 pa. Which option would you choose? How is that saving money? Previously no pay, now paid.

Unless jobs are identified up front as being surplus to requirement (and other now vacant positions identified as essential), and jobs filled or scrapped accordingly, I reckon this will turn out to be yet another public service efficiency fiasco. 

On the face of it, the "initiative" seems good, but *as usual there are no specifics just vague aspirations and a carrot*.


----------



## Complainer (10 Apr 2009)

Marathon Man said:


> ?????
> 
> Prior to this they could take up to 5 years leave of absence on no pay. (I presume that this option is still available.) Now they can take up to 3 years on up to 12,500 pa. Which option would you choose? How is that saving money? Previously no pay, now paid.
> 
> ...


You are ignoring (presumably deliberately) the fact that without  the incentive, this person would not take a break at all and would stay no full salary.


----------



## Marathon Man (10 Apr 2009)

Complainer said:


> You are ignoring (presumably deliberately) the fact that without the incentive, this person would not take a break at all and would stay no full salary.


 
No I'm not. Sure, it's a great incentive for people to take a sabbatical, however, up to now, a significant number of people have taken unpaid leave of absence for up to 5 years. 

Presumably, without this incentive being on the table, significant numbers would still be applying for unpaid leave, however, with this on the table, nobody in their right mind in going to look for unpaid leave. Therefore we will now be paying people ito take leave which they would otherwise not have been paid for. 

It'd be interesting to see how many public servants have taken leave of absence, trend this and compare with numbers applying for the new scheme. That would give an indication of how much temporary salary savings are being made. Frankly I don't believe that we will see any meaningful job savings resulting from this after three years.

PS I've just done a google search and, while I can't find figures for most Depts, there are, apparently, several thousand public servants on unpaid leave of absence. If we take a conservative 2,000 on unpaid leave annually, we will now be paying next year's 2,000 up to €25 million to take leave! The actual number on leave of absence is almost certainly very much higher than 2,000. Like I said look at the historical figure and compare.


----------



## liaconn (10 Apr 2009)

MarathonMan

Without this incentive a lot of people, who would like to take a career break, won't because they can't afford to. With this incentive, some people will now be able to scrape by for three years and, while doing that,will also vacate their public service jobs for those three years saving the taxpayer money.  Unpaid career breaks were popular over the past ten years or so because many women with children could afford to take them as their partners had safe, secure jobs. Also many people took them in order to travel because there was no problem picking up casual work abroad to support themselves. These conditions no longer exist, therefore the only way to encourage public servants to take career breaks is to offer them some element of financial support.

As I said before, it will also provide assistance in taking  a strategic, long term look at what posts are and aren't essential.

You seem to think that this was a good idea when the private sector introduced it, but not when taxpayers money is involved. This doesn't make sense. It is a waste of taxpayers money to emulate an idea that worked well in the private sector and was widely approved of??????


----------



## Marathon Man (10 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> As I said before, it will also provide assistance in taking a strategic, long term look at what posts are and aren't essential.


I see no evidence of any strategic examination of requirements. This appears to be a vague policy proposing to pay people to go and see if the gaps need to be filled. I've been through several downsizings, redundancies and layoffs. During these, strategic analyses were made of job requirements and then people were laid off, redeployed or other options like redundancy or early retirement was offered. In this case people are being offered an incentive before any analysis of job requirements is carried out. Also I wonder how long the public service unions are going to stay quiet about the "extra work our members are doing", filling in for those who take up the offer. ...and judging from the Q's on this and other fora, there is going to be a massive take up on this - like Benchmarking again!




liaconn said:


> You seem to think that this was a good idea when the private sector introduced it, but not when taxpayers money is involved.


 I never said anything of the sort. 


Marathon Man said:


> wrt other posters point on PTSB, that was a private entity before, with no taxpayers money going in. I think things would be different now. ...or should be - I don't think reality has hit home with the bankers yet!


 The PTSB is one of the banks now guaranteed by the taxpayer, hardly a shining example! 




liaconn said:


> It is a waste of taxpayers money to emulate an idea that worked well in the private sector and was widely approved of??????


 I see no evidence that it worked well there.... and was widely approved where?? In the public service???


----------



## liaconn (10 Apr 2009)

Marathon Man said:


> I see no evidence of any strategic examination of requirements. This appears to be a vague policy proposing to pay people to go and see if the gaps need to be filled. I've been through several downsizings, redundancies and layoffs. During these, strategic analyses were made of job requirements and then people were laid off, redeployed or other options like redundancy or early retirement was offered. In this case people are being offered an incentive before any analysis of job requirements is carried out. Also I wonder how long the public service unions are going to stay quiet about the "extra work our members are doing", filling in for those who take up the offer. ...and judging from the Q's on this and other fora, there is going to be a massive take up on this - like Benchmarking again!
> 
> I never said anything of the sort.
> The PTSB is one of the banks now guaranteed by the taxpayer, hardly a shining example!
> ...


 
I said it would *assist*  in taking a long term strategic look at the fundamental changes required. In the meantime saving money.

I doubt very much that there will be a _massive_  take up on this as most people won't be able to afford it as outlined in my last post. And I don't understand you comment 'like benchmarking again'. That just seems to be a generalised swipe at the public service, bearing no relation to the topic under discussion.

You also seem to have decided in advance that the unions will start kicking up about 'extra work'. Why don't you wait until there is some evidence of this.

Apologies re the PTSB remark. It wasn't you it was many other posters who, like me, think its a good idea. Its certainly better than just throwing people out on the street and making them draw the dole.


----------



## liaconn (10 Apr 2009)

Meant to also add, Bord Snip have been reviewing Government Departments since January and have made various recommendations which I'm sure the various initiatives announced on Tues will feed into. The OECD also took a forensic look at the Irish Civil Service last year and produced a report which is also being taken on board. Therefore it is inaccurate to say there is no strategic thinking and planning going on.

Also, we have for years been covering for collegues on four day weeks, week on week off patterns, taking unpaid maternity and parental leave, termtime etc. While there is sometimes private grumbling over the extra work that gets dumped on remaining staff, there has been no formal complaints or union action, people have just got on with it.


----------



## Marathon Man (11 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> ....Bord Snip have been reviewing Government Departments.....have made various recommendations which I'm sure the various initiatives announced on Tues will feed into. The OECD also took a forensic look at the Irish Civil Service last year and produced a report which is also being taken on board. Therefore it is inaccurate to say there is no strategic thinking and planning going on.


I had meant wrt this initiative, but your point is valid.  However there was no indication in the Budget speech, or the Annexes, that one would feed into the other. I would hope so, however I wait with bated breath to see is these dots will be joined up together.  I have my doubts.

I stick by my inital post however. This initiative is offering up to €12,500 pa for taking leave, where, up to now, several thousand public servants have been on upaid leave each year.  It follows that, unless it is intended that there is a huge increase in uptake, this is clearly a loss making proposal. On the individual level, one would be mad not to look at it and I have suggested that Mrs. MM look into it, but, having suggested it to her, I still think it's another one of those proposals that hasn't been thought through fully.



liaconn said:


> ...we have ...been covering for collegues on ..... leave..etc. ..... there has been no formal complaints or union action, people have just got on with it.


OK, I accept that but, if the Government gets the response it needs (to meet its cash flow targets, allowing for the additional payments that will have to be made to those who would have taken unpaid leave anyway), then there will be significant coverage shortfalls requiring doubling/trebling up and I think that labour problems may arise then.  However only time will tell.  

There are no details with this scheme.  We don't know what numbers are currently on unpaid leave - now there's a Dail Q. for someone - there are some (dated) figures available for some Depts available from Dail debates, but no overall figure.  Without that as a baseline, it won't be possible to properly judge the effectiveness of the measure. 

If there had been even the slightest inkling that this was feeding into/out of something like Bord Snips investigation - but there wasn't - then one could make a judgement.  As I said this is an aspirational proposal, with no costings, no targets, no detail, but for someone previously contemplating unpaid leave, for whatever reason, it's a no-brainer - go for it!


----------



## Complainer (11 Apr 2009)

The three year break (the limit of this incentive  scheme) will be of little interest to many of those seeking the break for family reasons, who often look for and take the full five years. It will most likely be of interest to younger staff, who will use it as an opportunity to go travelling.


----------



## cork (16 Apr 2009)

It does not even apply to the local authorities.

Given that they are 110 + such organisations - it is a pity that such a scheme does not cover the sector.


----------

