# Employers to cover first 4 weeks sick-pay



## Purple (16 Nov 2011)

That's what the government are now suggesting. What do posters think of this proposal?


----------



## DerKaiser (16 Nov 2011)

Disgraceful.  

Tough on the employers, probably tougher on the employees of small businesses who'll be made walk to work on broken legs!

Why in the name of God are they doing everything to protect handouts at the expense of investment & employment???


----------



## Leper (16 Nov 2011)

Employers to pay the first 4 weeks sick pay - lunacy.


----------



## micmclo (16 Nov 2011)

Where's employers PRSI going so? 

Seems businesses are just being treated as tax collectors


----------



## DB74 (16 Nov 2011)

We need a General Election


----------



## Armada (16 Nov 2011)

I employ 6 to 7 people in a small business and have done so for the last 20 odd years. 

If this plan is implemented I will not be creating any more employment if a vacancy arises. Its almost like adding on an extra 20 days annual leave for some employees.

I have a female staff  of whom 75% of them have young children and unemployed partners/spouses at home. I am working all hours myself to keep the business going for their sakes too as they have been loyal to me in the past. That said I draw the line when it comes to being taken for a fool by a government or otherwise.


----------



## Amygdala (16 Nov 2011)

I think it is an excellent idea.  Short-term illness should be between employer and employee and have nothing to do with the state. I also think the first two days of sick leave should be unpaid.


----------



## The_Banker (16 Nov 2011)

PRSI - Pay Related Social Insurance

What is the point of paying this?


----------



## oldnick (16 Nov 2011)

amygdala - if you think that the state should have nothing to do with short-term illness and it should only be between employer and employee why then is it "an excellent idea" that the state intervenes in this relationship and imposes this law ?

Am so glad that I  no longer run a  small business - just couldn't afford this and other new laws being proposed.


----------



## Shawady (17 Nov 2011)

Is the law that the employer MUST pay the first 4 weeks of sick pay or just that the government won't pay anything for the first 4 weeks?
In other words is it still at the discresion of the employer to pay sick leave or not?


----------



## Mpsox (17 Nov 2011)

Employers don't have to pay sick pay at the minute. Many do but expect the sick person to claim the relevant SW payment and then deduct that from their wages. What I'm not clear from what the Govt is saying is whether or not this is making it mandatory for employers to pay sick pay for the first 4 weeks or if not, that a sick person will not be able to claim SW for the first 4 weeks either.

If it's the latter, the real risk is that people who are genuinly sick will come to work because financially they have no option. They could then spread their sickness to colleagues or endanger themselves if they are not in a fit state to work.


----------



## Shawady (17 Nov 2011)

Mpsox said:


> What I'm not clear from what the Govt is saying is whether or not this is making it mandatory for employers to pay sick pay for the first 4 weeks or if not, that a sick person will not be able to claim SW for the first 4 weeks either.


 
Thats what isn't clear to me either.


----------



## Firefly (17 Nov 2011)

Would it be better if PRSI was scrapped altogher and nobody was paid sick leave at all? Why should an employer or the state be out of pocket if an employee is sick? Afterall, they are down a man/woman and also have to pay for the inconvenience of it as well? If PRSI and sick leave were abolished then people could freely take out sick pay insurance in the market place.


----------



## The_Banker (17 Nov 2011)

Firefly said:


> Would it be better if PRSI was scrapped altogher and nobody was paid sick leave at all? *Why should* an employer or *the state be out of pocket *if an employee is sick? Afterall, they are down a man/woman and also have to pay for the inconvenience of it as well? If PRSI and sick leave were abolished then people could freely take out sick pay insurance in the market place.


 
Surely that is why employees pay PRSI to the government? People pay *Social Insurance* to cover them for when they are sick... 

I can understand why an employer is annoyed if he or she is expected to pay the forst 4 weeks of sick leave. They already make PRSI contributions for the employee.


----------



## Firefly (17 Nov 2011)

The_Banker said:


> Surely that is why employees pay PRSI to the government? People pay *Social Insurance* to cover them for when they are sick...



But why not scrap PRSI altogether? Then there would be no burder on the state (aka the taxpayer) or the employer. If people want to insure themselves let them do it privately in the market just like they do with other insurances.


----------



## Mpsox (17 Nov 2011)

Firefly said:


> But why not scrap PRSI altogether? Then there would be no burder on the state (aka the taxpayer) or the employer. If people want to insure themselves let them do it privately in the market just like they do with other insurances.


 
Firstly, would everyone get cover? Depending on the nature of the job, some insurers may be reluctant to cover people (Gardai for example) or unless you have universal measures like you have on health insurance, they may not cover people over certain ages (or make the premiums prohibitive). PRSI is standard, private may not be. It's quite possilbe the premiums for some people could be way above PRSI which are standard

Secondly, my experience of any private insurance is that there are always loopholes to try and cover the insurance company and prevent payout.


----------



## DB74 (17 Nov 2011)

There are already options for people to pay into some form of sickness benefit scheme if they want to


----------



## Firefly (17 Nov 2011)

Mpsox said:


> Firstly, would everyone get cover? Depending on the nature of the job, some insurers may be reluctant to cover people (Gardai for example) or unless you have universal measures like you have on health insurance, they may not cover people over certain ages (or make the premiums prohibitive). PRSI is standard, private may not be. It's quite possilbe the premiums for some people could be way above PRSI which are standard
> 
> Secondly, my experience of any private insurance is that there are always loopholes to try and cover the insurance company and prevent payout.



I agree with all that, but you could say the same about most insurance products. Lots of people don't insure their homes for example while many others do. 

Why should the state or the employer have to be out of pocket if an employee is sick?


----------



## DerKaiser (17 Nov 2011)

Firefly said:


> Why should the state ...have to be out of pocket if an employee is sick?


 
Same reason the state is out of pocket when someone turns 66 or if they lose their job; basic social protection. The only difference is that a relatively minor portion of PRSI provides adequate amounts of revenue to the state to cover statutory sick leave whilst covering unemployment benefits and old age pensions would/will require severe tax hikes.

If you only employ one or two people and have a bad run of luck it could ruin your business, and that possibility would be enough to deter job creation.

The saving to the state has been set at €150m for a full year. I wonder would hiking the emplyers PRSI rate from 10.75% to 11 or 11.25% achieve the same thing without leaving small employers vulnerable? 

The issue here is insurance (PRS*I*), I dare say most employers would rather pay an extra 0.5% rather than run the risk of sick employees and the outcome would be revenue neutral to the state. 

It's the same point as medical cards for OAPs. Reasonably well off OAPs were rightly horrified by the thought that removing the medical card would lead them to a situation where they might experience poor health and not have enough to pay the bills. Charging say €500 p.a. for the use of the medical card to the people concerned would have been cost neutral to the state and removed the worry of an unforseen illness.

In short (despite working in a private insurance company!) I believe the state should levy relatively minor charges and taxes to provide protection for individuals against illness rather than leave people exposed. We pay enough in taxes for small portions of it to be ringfenced into providing such peace of mind at a relatively low cost when the aggregate amount is divided arcoss the total population.


----------



## Complainer (17 Nov 2011)

It's funny how employers in the UK and elsewhere in Europe manage to meet this 'onerous' provision without crashing and burning. Maybe they're just smarter employers over there.


----------



## Chris (17 Nov 2011)

The_Banker said:


> Surely that is why employees pay PRSI to the government? People pay *Social Insurance* to cover them for when they are sick...
> .


It is not insurance it is a ponzi scheme. If an insurance company were to operate in the same way they would be immediately put out of business. 



Mpsox said:


> Firstly, would everyone get cover? Depending on the nature of the job, some insurers may be reluctant to cover people (Gardai for example) or unless you have universal measures like you have on health insurance, they may not cover people over certain ages (or make the premiums prohibitive). PRSI is standard, private may not be. It's quite possilbe the premiums for some people could be way above PRSI which are standard


Of course people would get cover just like people can get life insurance. The price would depend on the risk of injury and illness based on work and private activities. Why should non smokers who are less prone to illness pay the same as smokers? Why should someone who plays no hazardous sports pay the same as someone who goes off piste skiing? A private risk based system would also have the advantage of encouraging people to lead less risky/healthy lives.
Now if there is a heroin addict who likes to go mountaineering and he cannot get insurance then that person is forced to have some savings to cover a period of illness, but that is a good thing, we do not want to reward bad behaviour at the expense of good behaviour.
If because of one of life's unfairnesses someone is prone to sickness then they can always negotiate an employment contract that covers sick leave or they can save money to self cover any eventualities. This is not something that has to be forced on people as the only possible solution.

Bottom line, employers should not be forced to cover sick leave, this should be between the employer and employee. The SW benefit that kicks in after 3 days should be scrapped altogether in conjunction with a reduction in employer PRSI. Mandatory sick leave will only result in lower wages, if an employee is ok with that then let them put it in the employment contract, this is not something that should be mandated.


----------



## Mpsox (17 Nov 2011)

Firefly said:


> I agree with all that, but you could say the same about most insurance products. Lots of people don't insure their homes for example while many others do.
> 
> Why should the state or the employer have to be out of pocket if an employee is sick?


 
What if work made the employee sick? Plenty of accidents happen in the workplace

Would there be professions that people wouldn't work in because they couldn't get insurance. I'm thinking of people like firefighers, tree surgeons etc, professions that are actually dangerous but still required.

What if the cost of private insurance was so prohibitive that it actually served as a disincentive for people to go back to work in low paying jobs?


----------



## Chris (17 Nov 2011)

DerKaiser said:


> The saving to the state has been set at €150m for a full year. I wonder would hiking the emplyers PRSI rate from 10.75% to 11 or 11.25% achieve the same thing without leaving small employers vulnerable?
> 
> The issue here is insurance (PRS*I*), I dare say most employers would rather pay an extra 0.5% rather than run the risk of sick employees and the outcome would be revenue neutral to the state.


As you work for N insurance company you should know that PRSI is as much an insurance as the moon is made of cheese.
If a small employer wants to provide sick leave then they are not forced to take that risk on, there are plenty of insurances on offer to employers to help alleviate the risk of short and long term illness. My employer provides me with both short and long term cover but this is covered through a private insurance product. There is no unfilled gap in the market where government has to jump in to the rescue. 
If employers are really so well off with the cover provided through employer PRSI then surely they would not have to be forced into the scheme!



DerKaiser said:


> It's the same point as medical cards for OAPs. Reasonably well off OAPs were rightly horrified by the thought that removing the medical card would lead them to a situation where they might experience poor health and not have enough to pay the bills. Charging say €500 p.a. for the use of the medical card to the people concerned would have been cost neutral to the state and removed the worry of an unforseen illness.


Why would this have to be something that only the government can provide? There are plenty of health insurance products that cover a large portion of GP visit costs.


----------



## Chris (17 Nov 2011)

Mpsox said:


> What if work made the employee sick? Plenty of accidents happen in the workplace
> 
> Would there be professions that people wouldn't work in because they couldn't get insurance. I'm thinking of people like firefighers, tree surgeons etc, professions that are actually dangerous but still required.
> 
> What if the cost of private insurance was so prohibitive that it actually served as a disincentive for people to go back to work in low paying jobs?



We are talking about short term illness cover, so if an employee cannot get insurance then they will have to save up 4 weeks wages, not exactly a prohibitive feat.
Secondly, insurance companies make money by pricing so that as many people as possible can be covered, not the other way round. How many people have you heard of being priced out of the life insurance market? 
Thirdly, there is no reason why employers would blanket refuse to offer sick pay, in which case the employee would. Of have to worry about individual insurance.


----------



## ajapale (17 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> That's what the government are now suggesting. What do posters think of this proposal?



Hi Purple,

Can you point to a link which explains the detail of the proposal?

I thought this was what Employers PRSI was for? If employers have to pay sick leave or take out insurance to cover themselves then why should the have to pay very high Employers PRSI?

Is the proposal for the introduction of a manditory sick pay scheme?

aj

PS I dont think this serious thread belongs in  Letting Off Steam. If its ok with the OP then Ill move it and delete the rants.


----------



## DerKaiser (17 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> It's funny how employers in the UK and elsewhere in Europe manage to meet this 'onerous' provision without crashing and burning. Maybe they're just smarter employers over there.


 
So you don't believe in social insurance then? Or is it just you don't believe in social insurance in the private sector? Don't let your principles get in the way of a sly dig at small enterprise.

I work for a large organisation more akin to the public service in terms of benefits and culture where this move would be a non-issue. Can you not accept that it is an issue for small organisations struggling to justify keeping going?


----------



## Complainer (17 Nov 2011)

DerKaiser said:


> So you don't believe in social insurance then? Or is it just you don't believe in social insurance in the private sector? Don't let your principles get in the way of a sly dig at small enterprise.



I don't believe that the dramatic over-reaction seen here (similar to the dramatic over-reaction to the 'raiding of private pensions) is genuine. It is generally coming from those people who call loudly for cutbacks and reductions *for other people*, but suddenly start whining very, very loudly when a small impact of our current desperate situation starts to hit them, as opposed to hitting other people.


----------



## Mpsox (17 Nov 2011)

Chris said:


> We are talking about short term illness cover, so if an employee cannot get insurance then they will have to save up 4 weeks wages, not exactly a prohibitive feat.
> .


 
wow, I'm sure anyone on here who is in a minimum wage job will 100% agree with that comment


----------



## DB74 (17 Nov 2011)

Mpsox said:


> wow, I'm sure anyone on here who is in a minimum wage job will 100% agree with that comment



And of course all those people who are currently struggling to pay their mortgage and other bills and day-to-day expenses will also have no problem saving up 4 weeks wages to put away for a rainy day


----------



## T McGibney (17 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> people who call loudly for cutbacks and reductions *for other people*, but suddenly start whining very, very loudly when a small impact of our current desperate situation starts to hit them, as opposed to hitting other people.



Ironically an apt description of the Minister for Social Protection herself


----------



## DerKaiser (17 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> I don't believe that the dramatic over-reaction seen here (similar to the dramatic over-reaction to the 'raiding of private pensions) is genuine. It is generally coming from those people who call loudly for cutbacks and reductions *for other people*, but suddenly start whining very, very loudly when a small impact of our current desperate situation starts to hit them, as opposed to hitting other people.


 
It's small on average, but the consequences in individual circumstances could be severe.  I just wonder if there was a 0.5% increase in employers PRSI would there be as much opposition?

The 0.6% pension levy to fund jobs creation is made a mockery of when you simultaneuously bring in measures that increase the costs/risks associated with employing people.


----------



## Purple (17 Nov 2011)

ajapale said:


> Hi Purple,
> 
> Can you point to a link which explains the detail of the proposal?
> 
> ...



[broken link removed] article in the Irish Times discusses the proposal.
My understanding is that employers would have to give employees 4 weeks sick-pay a year, after which the government would step in.
I presume the rate would be the same as they would get at the moment, i.e. welfare rates, but I haven’t seen any details either.
It seems to be a kite flying exercise.

I have no problem with you moving the thread. I posted it here as I thought that, due to the nature of the issue and lack of details available, it would end up in Letting off Steam.


----------



## z107 (17 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> It's funny how employers in the UK and elsewhere in Europe manage to meet this 'onerous' provision without crashing and burning. Maybe they're just smarter employers over there.



If you are referring to SSP (statutory sick pay) in the UK, then there is a recovery scheme whereby employers claim most of the money back.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/e14.pdf


----------



## Marion (17 Nov 2011)

I guess some of us have forgotten the mantra "we must all share the pain".

Marion


----------



## Chris (18 Nov 2011)

DB74 said:


> And of course all those people who are currently struggling to pay their mortgage and other bills and day-to-day expenses will also have no problem saving up 4 weeks wages to put away for a rainy day



So the alternative is to further burden private companies and make it even more difficult for them to expand and create jobs and less attractive for foreign companies? The time to prepare for bad times is not in the bad times but before. Unfortunately this is something that the vast majority of Irish people completely ignored.


----------



## DB74 (18 Nov 2011)

Chris said:


> So the alternative is to further burden private companies and make it even more difficult for them to expand and create jobs and less attractive for foreign companies? The time to prepare for bad times is not in the bad times but before. Unfortunately this is something that the vast majority of Irish people completely ignored.



I'm not sure what your point is here Chris

I'm totally against bringing in the "employer pays" scenario


----------



## oldnick (18 Nov 2011)

I'm afraid some people think that owners of companies ,no matter how small those companies, are rich exploitive capitalists. The fact that many are struggling small enterprises employing a handful of people (who ,unlike the owners can get redudnacy, the dole and other benefits) doesn't occur to those critics.

Many of those owners earn no more than their workers and ae far less protected.
It may be a nice idea to pay people for staying at home due to illness but I know that this will ultimately affect the earnings of their fellow workers  and/or the price of the company products and ultimately the viability of the company.

The next step I gather  is reducing the redundancy refunds, followed by an increase in maternity leave  -which will include fathers. Soon after, no doubt,there'll be demands for thirty-hour weeks.

Ireland is moving in the direction that European governments are trying to reverse as they have seen the consequences of non-stop goodies to all and sundry.


----------



## T McGibney (18 Nov 2011)

Marion said:


> I guess some of us have forgotten the mantra "we must all share the pain".
> 
> Marion



This is an utterly ridiculous statement. Have you any idea of the numbers of employers who are currently struggling to keep their staff in jobs?


----------



## ajapale (18 Nov 2011)

The employer pays PRSI to "cover" sick pay. The employee pays PRSI to "cover" sick pay.

If the "pain" were to be fairly distributed then the empoyer should pay approximately half and the the employee should carry the other half of the standard rate. This should apply to the public and private sectors alike.

I wonder what effect this would have on absenteeism rates?


----------



## Firefly (18 Nov 2011)

ajapale said:


> The employer pays PRSI to "cover" sick pay. The employee pays PRSI to "cover" sick pay.
> 
> If the "pain" were to be fairly distributed then the empoyer should pay approximately half and the the employee should carry the other half of the standard rate. This should apply to the public and private sectors alike.
> 
> I wonder what effect this would have on absenteeism rates?



Now there's a great idea.


----------



## oldnick (18 Nov 2011)

Actually the real answer to the continuing cost of hiring employees is to do what is happening in every conveneience store  I've been to in and around Dublin . 
I can't speak for the garage convenience stores, the Spas and Centras outside of Dublin but here every one seems to employ Mauritians, Chinese and Indians.

They are on short-stay contracts ,usually they're supposedly students only allowed to work a certain number of hours per week. It's a great way to avoid the increasingly onerous conditions being imposed on employers -and they're cheap and hard-working.
Why employ an Irish person who either stays at home and gets 190 euros a week or comes to work and expects all sorts of benefits when one can get a hard-working  educated cheap Asian who won't be around for too long ?


----------



## Complainer (18 Nov 2011)

Marion said:


> I guess some of us have forgotten the mantra "we must all share the pain".
> 
> Marion



I guess for some of us, that mantra was never really meant to be taken to heart at all.



oldnick said:


> Why employ an Irish person who either stays at home and gets 190 euros a week or comes to work and expects all sorts of benefits when one can get a hard-working  educated cheap Asian who won't be around for too long ?



Because nationality has no impact on employment rights.


----------



## T McGibney (18 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> I guess for some of us, that mantra was never really meant to be taken to heart at all.



Millionaire-pension civil service bosses and ex-Ministers - the most glaring examples I can think of.


----------



## oldnick (18 Nov 2011)

Nationality does have an impact on employment rights if people of a certain nationality are not allowed to stay in the state for  more than a certain period,  and if during their stay they cannot work more than a certain number of hours, and if they are not allowed to bring their spouses with them.

Less worries for the employer about redundancy payments, maternity leave and benefits -and bluntly less worries about "I-know-my-rights" employees.


----------



## Amygdala (18 Nov 2011)

oldnick said:


> Nationality does have an impact on employment rights if people of a certain nationality are not allowed to stay in the state for  more than a certain period,  and if during their stay they cannot work more than a certain number of hours, and if they are not allowed to bring their spouses with them.
> 
> Less worries for the employer about redundancy payments, maternity leave and benefits -and bluntly less worries about "I-know-my-rights" employees.



Well said old nick. Best to employ those who have less rights than those who have more. Put me down for three. Where did you get your MBA?


----------



## oldnick (18 Nov 2011)

Talk about shooting the messenger and not heeding the message Amygdala.

If I was not clear let me write this slowly..

If governments impose conditions that employers cannot afford then employers will seek alternatives.  That, Amygdala, is not my fault- it is just a fact and  one result of too many employment conditions being imposed on small businesses. 

Possible other results:-

- making employees "self-employed" . This is common in some countries such as Spain where employees have very strong and favourable conditions (over 20% of them are out of work nowadays -co-incidence?). Over the last decade the increase in "automonas"  has increased -an employer gives a job to someone but on a self-employed basis.
This is because Spanish employers are finding it too difficult and expensive to employ people- not because of wages but because of the never ending benefits given to the workers.
This is happening even here with,for example,  sales people. Even in my own ex-trade ,the travel business, the largest travel agency uses about 70 self-employed agents or counsellors with no employment rights whatsoever.

2. The growth in undocumented labour. Again a big phenomenon in Spain- and wherever an economy is in trouble and the legal employment of people is burdened with conditions.

3. Increased unemployment    -when the economy is crap and small businesses are struggling (and failing every day).


----------



## Deiseblue (19 Nov 2011)

As you say employers are employing every stratagem to keep businesses going & more power to them!

However if they breach employment legislation then they should be prosecuted or reported to the LRC or the Rights Commissioner depending on the offense - people may dislike it but it is the law of the land.


----------



## oldnick (19 Nov 2011)

Here's another one...

attendance bonus - I would have thought this would be illegal but it seems increasingly common and even accepted by trade unions...

There are various schemes - but essentially an employee is rewarded for not taking days off. 
For example -employee ABC takes a months sick pay and gets, say, 36k -the official annual salary of 12 months at 3k per month. Officially the employer has paid her for taking a month off.  Employee XYZ takes no sick pay and gets a bonus of 3k -total -39k which is what the employer had pre-calculated as a workable income per employee.


There will be always legal (as well as illegal) ways around these rules.
Interesting in the news today -including irish times - how in UK the abuse of sick pay has reached such levels and is costing the economy so much that the govnt is now changing the rules regarding medical superviosn - no more quick sick notes from your local G.P.


----------



## Yachtie (21 Nov 2011)

Marion said:


> I guess some of us have forgotten the mantra "we must all share the pain".


 
As a very small busines owner, I am SICK of sharing the pain, because I seem to share it only with the other small business owners while we are collectively (as a society) supporting thousands of 'career' long term unemployed.

To back this up somewhat, I was made redundant in 2008 from a €70k p.a. job. Didn't manage to secure another one in a few months so I went out to create a job for myself. I now earn a very small fraction of what I used to. My family's lifestyle went through a huge adjustment and we don't complain. 

On the other hand, I have met several long term unemployed who use all kinds of excuses from having children to being 'creative, artistic person' for not working even at times when we had more jobs than people. 

I meet my legal obligations as an employer, often at the detriment of myself and my own family. If my employees are not working, whether it's due to the bank holiday, holiday or sickness, the company is not making money. So technically, all those obligations are met out of my own pocket. I (and I can only speak for myself) can not afford to pay sick leave or Christmas bonus. The money simply isn't there!!!

Having to pay up to 4 weeks sick leave, including the Monday morning hangover leave would drive me out of business in a couple of weeks and would create even bigger burden on the state. 

In order to achieve savings, I think that the state should put a cap on how much anyone can receive in handouts. For example, put a cap on total amount of unemployment benefit + child benefit + mortgage interest allowance / rent supplement + single parent allowance + whatever. I know a long term unemployed single mother of 4 school going children who receives close to €3000 per month in handouts. I don't know exactly what this figure is made up of but she blatantly states that she's better off staying at home and receiving €3000 than working for far less. Her three sisters do exactly the same and haven't done a day's work between them. Then you'd see a surge of Irish people taking jobs in your local Spar, Centra or Maxol.

In Holland, the state will assist you in securing emplyment through an agency similar to FAS. Once you turn down the second job they offer you, your benefits stop. I wonder how quickly our unemployment rate would improve if this was implemented here.


----------



## blueband (21 Nov 2011)

if the dole appears to be that good im surprised you are not taking advantage of it yourself!   but then the other mans grass........and all that


----------



## z107 (21 Nov 2011)

Marion said:


> I guess some of us have forgotten the mantra "we must all share the pain".
> 
> Marion



Lol!

The day I get to share their wealth, will be the day I consider sharing the pain.
Unfortunately, their pain is begin foisted upon us.


----------



## Chris (21 Nov 2011)

DB74 said:


> I'm not sure what your point is here Chris
> 
> I'm totally against bringing in the "employer pays" scenario


Apologies, that wasn't really directed at you, more in general.



ajapale said:


> The employer pays PRSI to "cover" sick pay. The employee pays PRSI to "cover" sick pay.
> 
> If the "pain" were to be fairly distributed then the empoyer should pay approximately half and the the employee should carry the other half of the standard rate. This should apply to the public and private sectors alike.


Both employer and employee PRSI are a tax on wages which means that it is effectively the employee that pays the whole amount. It is just dressed up nicely to sound "appealing" to employees. Employers do not calculate their salary budget for a year and then add employer PRSI on top of it, they work out how much they can afford to pay including PRSI.


----------



## Yachtie (21 Nov 2011)

blueband said:


> if the dole appears to be that good im surprised you are not taking advantage of it yourself! but then the other mans grass........and all that


 
I am assuming that above was directed at me... I actually get to pay myself marginally more than the unemployment benefit or whatever is around €200 per week. Why I don't take the dole myself? Well, I worked hard my whole life and wouldn't know what to do with myself if I wasn't working. To be very clear, I have no issues with people who lost their jobs in the recession and are making genuine attempt to secure alternative employment but finding it impossible. I have a problem with 'career unemployed' whom there are more than just a handful.


----------



## Firefly (22 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> I don't believe that the dramatic over-reaction seen here (similar to the dramatic over-reaction to the 'raiding of private pensions) is genuine. It is generally coming from those people who call loudly for cutbacks and reductions *for other people*, but suddenly start whining very, very loudly when a small impact of our current desperate situation starts to hit them, as opposed to hitting other people.



Businesses up and down the country are closing or laying off people. Do you have any idea what that feels like both for the employees and employers? How about the employees that are not sure if they will be working after Christmas...wonder how they feel? There are 400 thousand on the dole and rising. People are having to emigrate...a relation of mine had to take up with in Holland and can only come home once a month to see his partner and child. 

Apart from making a tiny contribution to a pension with an equivalent value of a million + I can't see anything else to suggest that the pain has been spread evenly in this country, perhaps you could enlighted us?


----------



## cork (22 Nov 2011)

The amounts of sick days in the public sector has gone of of all control.

Doctors are a lot to blame giving sick certs.


----------



## oldnick (22 Nov 2011)

If Complainer's attitude is typical of a Labour supporter it does not surprise me. 
 Many Labour supporters seem to have an atavistic dislike of anyone trying to do their own business -regardless as to how small, tough and profitless it is. 
(the same scorn is directed to anyone who has saved money and bought an investment property and is therefore an evil  landlord).

Complainer .....................
....do you really not understand that the average small businessperson has:-
-  far less protection than someone who is employed (and certainly far far less than a public servant)
- in many cases is earning less than the average industrial wage (and far far less than a Labour politician)
- often works all hours ,weekends,holidays
- and when they fail and lose everything they get no aid from the government.


Is it, Complainer, a confusion in your mind about the word "business" ? Do you confuse the person with a small  greengrocers, a couple of lorries or a hairdressimng business with the fat cats on a million a year ?

You may as in your last post call small businees people  over-dramatic whiners and ,frankly, i wouldn't care about the stupidity of one person's comments. What *is*  worrying is that your unceasingly derogative comments are representative of the Irish labour Party's attitude towards those people that Ireland most desperately needs.


----------



## shnaek (22 Nov 2011)

Ireland historically has little time for those who work hard to make something of themselves. Hopefully that attitude is changing.


----------



## T McGibney (22 Nov 2011)

shnaek said:


> Ireland historically has little time for those who work hard to make something of themselves. Hopefully that attitude is changing.



That attitude is certainly not changing, if anything it is hardening. 

In this country, if you advocate any cut or rationalisation in public services or provision, you are still labelled a neocon or Thatcherite. 

There is a lot of derision shown towards people working in small businesses and farms. There is also much contempt for rural dwellers and this is both reinforced by, and evident in, policymaking. I attribute this, in general terms, to pure snobbery. Most members of the governing class in this country are only a generation or two away from agrarian or inner-city urban subsistence living and their insecurity feeds a need to mentally isolate themselves from the lower orders in both city and countryside. I blame the famine myself.


----------



## Firefly (22 Nov 2011)

oldnick said:


> Complainer .....................
> ....do you really not understand that the average small businessperson has:-
> -  far less protection than someone who is employed (and certainly far far less than a public servant)
> - in many cases is earning less than the average industrial wage (and far far less than a Labour politician)
> ...



I expect Complainer to provide the usual line about directors paying less PRSI, but as has been repeatdly pointed out...directors don't have the option to pay increased PRSI and avail of the dole should they find themselves out of work. I for one would gladly pay the higher rate.


----------



## Purple (22 Nov 2011)

This is a young country so there is very little inherited wealth. There is some but relative to the rest of Western Europe it’s tiny.
I know it’s not popular and it certainly isn’t populist but most of the people in Ireland who run successful businesses have worked extremely hard to build them up. They have taken risks with their own money, often risking their family home, and endured massive levels of stress along with 80 hour plus 7 day working weeks on the way up. Most of them still work long hours and deal with huge stress levels. If you haven’t run your own business, particularly at the start-up stage, then you have no idea how hard it is.

These are the people that the Labour Party hates and looks down on but they are also the people who give jobs, opportunities and self respect to “The Poor”. “The Poor” are not the same as the poor. “The Poor” are the under-class of half-wits that the upper-middle class socialists in labour think exists and feel they need to look after. A bit like the white man’s burden of yester-year but they aren’t black. 

The employers, the people Labour hate, don’t think that The Poor exist at all. They just see people (some of whom are poor) and, if they have the skills and/or the right attitude, they give them a job. The employers don’t think the their employees are stupid and need to be "looked after", they just get on with running their business knowing that in the medium term what’s good for the business is also good for the employees. 

The strange thing is that the evil employers are the people who actually offer opportunity to poor people whereas the upper middle class socialists in Labour would cross the street to avoid them. Funny that.


----------



## oldnick (22 Nov 2011)

Purples last line

_... evil employers are the people who actually offer opportunity to poor people whereas u.middle class socialists in labour would cross the street to avoid them..._

How true !  For 30 years my small shops were in working class areas - Tallaght, Ballyfermot, North Inner City- all staffed by locals who stayed with me for years. (incidentally the people my staff hated most were their own neighbours and relations on the dole, claiming all sorts of benefits and doing nixers).

It's strange that I rarely had  strongly opposing views from my staff and their families when we went out socially. But when it comes to my educated middle class nieces and nephews in their 20s and 30s -then I am the old uncle who made some money on the backs of others (it was a bloody travel agency for God's sake I shout).
One of my nephews is a public servant, got a good degree through grants from the job (which the public pay for) and earns more than i did. And he waffles on about the "workers" !


----------

