# Fas, 70 days off, pre retirement



## thedaras (3 Aug 2011)

Wonder what other "perks" will be revealed.

http://www.independent.ie/national-...ys-leave-to-ease-into-retirement-2837818.html

I should add that its an extra 44 days on top of the 26 they are already entitled too.which totals the 70 days,am not sure if the title reflects this.


----------



## micmclo (3 Aug 2011)

Is the ceasefire over? 
I see it's not in Shooting the Breeze but instead it's in Letting off Steam 



> Even union sources admit the scheme is "generous" while private sector employers said it would be completely alien to most workers.



It's a very detailed article but I hate "sources". That's something some papers use to insert whatever they want.

There are direct quotes from IBEC, SIPTU and FÁS.
So no need for these general comments from unnamed sources.

How many employers did she ring around? Which unions? Just SIPTU? Senior members?

It's a well written piece, I just don't like that section


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2011)

I'm sure the usual suspects will post here justifying this practice.


----------



## thedaras (3 Aug 2011)

I think the problem is that the public are being drip fed this information .
They haven't a clue about a lot of these perks.

I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to hold onto those perks,you would have to be out of your mind to refuse a perk that is offered to you as part of your job.
So lets not blame those who avail of a legitimate perk.

The issue is those who granted this perk in the first place,and those who are supposed to be negotiating a better way forward.


----------



## Shawady (3 Aug 2011)

I don't think many people will justify this. It's certainly not something I have heard of in the general civil service.
I get the impression that FAS was a law onto itself the past decade.


----------



## micmclo (3 Aug 2011)

I'd like to know more about when this was introduced.
Was it in social partnership days? Or maybe futher back to ANCO

The article has nothing more then "long running"


----------



## RonanC (3 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> I'm sure the usual suspects will post here justifying this practice.


 
I seriously doubt that this is a public sector wide practice and also doubt many if any will justify it.


----------



## DB74 (3 Aug 2011)

RonanC said:


> I seriously doubt that this is a public sector wide practice and also doubt many if any will justify it.



Well the article states that the issue has been brought to the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court so somebody is trying very vigorously to defend it.


----------



## thedaras (3 Aug 2011)

@DB74 From the article;



> Internal correspondence obtained by the Irish Independent reveals efforts were made last month by FAS management to scrap the scheme.
> 
> However, management were forced to reinstate it just weeks later. Unions took the issue to the Labour Relations Commission and have since sought a hearing at the Labour Court.



And;



> SIPTU FAS branch organiser Brendan O'Brien said that the union was open to a "buyout" of the pre-retirement entitlements.
> 
> But he said the offer FAS had put on the table -- a one-off "buyout" of up to three extra days off over three years -- was not good enough.
> 
> ...


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Aug 2011)

I don't really have a problem with this , this condition of employment was readily entered into by employers and their employees ( represented by their Unions ).

The background to this is not clear but there is a strong possibility that this condition was granted in exchange for work practise changes.

As the main function of a Union is to protect the terms & conditions of it's members I have no problem with them referring the matter to the Labour Court - indeed I would be appalled if they didn't.


----------



## DB74 (3 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> The background to this is not clear but there is a strong possibility that this condition was granted in exchange for work practise changes.



Is there? Why?


----------



## Shawady (3 Aug 2011)

Sure isn't FAS going to be disbanded and staff moved to the new agency SOLAS. I assume all that has to happen is that the pre-retirement days are not part of the terms and conditions of the new agency.


----------



## Staples (3 Aug 2011)

That a practice like this was ever approved in the first place tells you all you need to know about how FAS was managed.  But you can understand why FAS employees would look to their unions to retain what is an extraordinary benefit.

Nothing of its kind exists anywhere else in the public service.


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I don't really have a problem with this , this condition of employment was readily entered into by employers and their employees ( represented by their Unions ).
> 
> The background to this is not clear but there is a strong possibility that this condition was granted in exchange for work practise changes.
> 
> As the main function of a Union is to protect the terms & conditions of it's members I have no problem with them referring the matter to the Labour Court - indeed I would be appalled if they didn't.



I told ya


----------



## DB74 (3 Aug 2011)

Shawady said:


> I assume all that has to happen is that the pre-retirement days are not part of the terms and conditions of the new agency.



You assume incorrectly sir!


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2011)

Shawady said:


> Sure isn't FAS going to be disbanded and staff moved to the new agency SOLAS. I assume all that has to happen is that the pre-retirement days are not part of the terms and conditions of the new agency.



TUPE would suggest otherwise.


----------



## Firefly (3 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I don't really have a problem with this , this condition of employment was readily entered into by employers and their employees ( represented by their Unions ).



The problem here is that all of these perks cost the taxpayer real money (the taxpayer being the employer here by the way).


----------



## Birroc (3 Aug 2011)

I truly believe that the problems of the public services can only be solved via a debt default. Only when the money truly runs out will the govt be able to tackle the budgets, resources and practices of the public sector. Of course some public sector bodies are way more wasteful than others (FAS, HSE, Councils) but it is clear that Croke Park and the Unions and populist political parties will prevent any real improvement. And the IMF seem ineffective so far.


----------



## horusd (3 Aug 2011)

I heard a union chappy (Siptu) on Newstalk this am. He sounded mortified but determined to "negotiate." Ah, just like  the good old days, where the indefensible is defended by the  incorrigible.


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2011)

horusd said:


> just like  the good old days, where the indefensible is defended by the  incorrigible.



Classic!


----------



## liaconn (3 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> I'm sure the usual suspects will post here justifying this practice.


 
Not a very fair comment - most of the 'usual suspects' don't post unsubstantiated nonsense unlike 'some' private sector workers. (Not talking about your thread Thedaras, by the way).

Anyway,back on topic - that perk is definitely not a public service wide one, I've never heard of it happening anywhere else.


----------



## DB74 (3 Aug 2011)

liaconn said:


> Anyway,back on topic - that perk is definitely not a public service wide one, I've never heard of it happening anywhere else.



So you think it should be abolished then?


----------



## Firefly (3 Aug 2011)

DB74 said:


> So you think it should be abolished then?




I think "negotiated away" is the new buzz word


----------



## thedaras (3 Aug 2011)

Isn't there something very civilized about this though..in that it is a fantastic way to end your working life..


Theres a lot to be said about easing out of work,ie down to four days,three days  etc..and it could work..if you can afford it, and if those days where you don't work are given to someone else..

Its just a pity that its at the taxpayers expense.


----------



## liaconn (3 Aug 2011)

Actually in the Civil Service you can opt to go on a 4 or 3 day week (unpaid) and its considered a good way to gradually wind down towards retirement - if you can afford it. I agree its a good way to end your working life, as opposed to doing the nine to five, five days a week routine until the day you retire and then, suddenly, no job to go to.

DB74 - I certainly don't think the taxpayers should be funding this unless it was a legal condition of EVERYONE'S employment - which wouldn't be affordable unfortunately.


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2011)

liaconn said:


> Not a very fair comment - most of the 'usual suspects' don't post unsubstantiated nonsense unlike 'some' private sector workers.


 They defend whatever happens in the public sector no matter what. It's nonsense as well.



thedaras said:


> Isn't there something very civilized about this though..in that it is a fantastic way to end your working life..
> 
> 
> Theres a lot to be said about easing out of work,ie down to four days,three days  etc..and it could work..if you can afford it, and if those days where you don't work are given to someone else..
> ...


We always give people the option of working a short week when they are near retirement.


----------



## Leper (3 Aug 2011)

I have defended the Public Service on these forums most of the time.  However, this FAS perk would not be defended by me.  I think most other people would not defend the issue either.


----------



## Firefly (3 Aug 2011)

Leper said:


> I have defended the Public Service on these forums most of the time.  However, this FAS perk would not be defended by me.  I think most other people would not defend the issue either.



The Great Defender hasn't replied yet though


----------



## thedaras (3 Aug 2011)

Firefly said:


> The Great Defender hasn't replied yet though


Oh but he did..

 Today, 11:58 AM
Deiseblue  



> I don't really have a problem with this , this condition of employment was readily entered into by employers and their employees ( represented by their Unions ).
> 
> The background to this is not clear but there is a strong possibility that this condition was granted in exchange for work practise changes.
> 
> As the main function of a Union is to protect the terms & conditions of it's members I have no problem with them referring the matter to the Labour Court - indeed I would be appalled if they didn't.


----------



## thedaras (3 Aug 2011)

Seems like there is even more defending of the position;
[broken link removed]

And from that article;



> SIPTU claimed today that FÁS workers deserve the Pre-Retirement Leave because they have had to work “tirelessly” in the recent downturn to help the newly jobless to secure training. O’Brien said:


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2011)

thedaras said:


> Oh but he did..
> 
> Today, 11:58 AM
> Deiseblue



Deiseblue isn't the Great Defender. He's quite rational some of the time


----------



## Firefly (3 Aug 2011)

From the link:

SIPTU claimed today that FÁS workers deserve the Pre-Retirement Leave  because they have had to work “tirelessly” in the recent downturn to  help the newly jobless to secure training. 

I presume that those same workers took a paycut during the boom decade when they were presumably twiddling their thumbs?


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> Deiseblue isn't the Great Defender. He's quite rational some of the time



Only " some of the time " ? 

You are of course quite right , I always thought of myself as more of a " striker " than a defender.

I really don't see a problem here , the employer and their employees representatives entered into what was obviously a mutually suitable agreement at the time which then became a part of the aforesaid employees terms & conditions of employment.

I have no idea of what the employees representatives conceded in order to achieve this concession - hopefully this will become apparent in coming days.

In terms of referring the matter to the Labour Court - the Unions are simply doing their job - their members would expect nothing less.


----------



## DB74 (3 Aug 2011)

As a matter of interest, who are the "employers" who would have signed off on the deal?

Are they previous FAS bigwigs who could have availed of the extra 44 days themselves when their time rolls around?


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Only " some of the time " ?
> 
> You are of course quite right , I always thought of myself as more of a " striker " than a defender.
> 
> ...



The problem is that it's tax payers money and it was not necessary. Waste; that's the problem.


----------



## onq (3 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> TUPE would suggest otherwise.



If this is deemed to be a part of the pension package I doubt if its covered by TUPE.

Otherwise, perhaps.

But to suggest Fás behaved like employers in negotiating any deal may be doing a grave disservice to employers in the private sector.

This measure seems like an inordinate amount of "time" and I doubt it can readily be justified in terms of normal employment practices.

ONQ.


----------



## DerKaiser (3 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> But to suggest Fás behaved like employers in negotiating any deal may be doing a grave disservice to employers in the private sector.



A grave disservice to savvy employers but not necessarily alien to how large banks, multinationals, etc, operate.

I've seen crazy random alterations to staff DB pensions from years ago that are now costing an arm and a leg to honour.

If an organisation is big enough (private or public), the management will be sufficiently far removed from the owners pocket to allow such things to happen.


----------



## DerKaiser (3 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I really don't see a problem here , the employer and their employees representatives entered into what was obviously a mutually suitable agreement at the time which then became a part of the aforesaid employees terms & conditions of employment.



Same as Fingleton's gold watch, €27m pension & €1m bonus.


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> The problem is that it's tax payers money and it was not necessary. Waste; that's the problem.



I would imagine that these pre-retirement days were conceded on a quid pro quo basis & employees through their representatives made cost saving concessions.

I would readily concede that this is a supposition on my part as no background info is to hand , certainly the Indo has not published the reasons for the granting of the pre - retirement days.


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I would imagine that these pre-retirement days were conceded on a quid pro quo basis & employees through their representatives made cost saving concessions.



 Why should cost savings have to be balanced with pay increases/ perks? 
Why is it not good enough that less tax payers money is being spent?

Where I work if an employee can save the place money they just make the suggestion or change and everyone is happy that money isn't being wasted today that was wasted yesterday. That makes the business more viable and everyone's job is a little safer. Many cost savings make jobs easier (often accompanied by some training). Most people in the real world don’t look for a pay increase in such circumstances they just accept that since the industrial revolution people’s jobs change as advances in technology are made.


----------



## Delboy (3 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I would imagine that these pre-retirement days were conceded on a quid pro quo basis & employees through their representatives made cost saving concessions.
> 
> I would readily concede that this is a supposition on my part as no background info is to hand , certainly the Indo has not published the reasons for the granting of the pre - retirement days.




Man, imagine what they must have 'conceded' to only end up with an extra 44 days each for the last 2 years!!!! now that would make good newspaper copy


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> Why should cost savings have to be balanced with pay increases/ perks?
> Why is it not good enough that less tax payers money is being spent?
> 
> Where I work if an employee can save the place money they just make the suggestion or change and everyone is happy that money isn't being wasted today that was wasted yesterday. That makes the business more viable and everyone's job is a little safer. Many cost savings make jobs easier (often accompanied by some training). Most people in the real world don’t look for a pay increase in such circumstances they just accept that since the industrial revolution people’s jobs change as advances in technology are made.



No more than yourself I am working purely in the dark here as to why these pre retirement days became part of employees's terms & conditions

If however they were introduced as a concession in return for a change in work practices then this is normal industrial practice in that employers are happy to make appropriate concessions in order to incentivise Unions & employees to accept management desired changes as such changes to terms & conditions must be negotiated with employees & their representatives.
' s


----------



## thedaras (4 Aug 2011)

The mind boggles as to what could/should/has been conceded to gain an extra 44 days !!

Anyone any ideas as to what would actually JUSTIFY this type of concession??

Cannot wait to hear what change was implemented to justify this!


----------



## Sunny (4 Aug 2011)

thedaras said:


> The mind boggles as to what could/should/has been conceded to gain an extra 44 days !!
> 
> Anyone any ideas as to what would actually JUSTIFY this type of concession??
> 
> Cannot wait to hear what change was implemented to justify this!



They probably agreed to stop using the company credit card!


----------



## Mpsox (4 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> If however they were introduced as a concession in return for a change in work practices then this is normal industrial practice in that employers are happy to make appropriate concessions in order to incentivise Unions & employees to accept management desired changes as such changes to terms & conditions must be negotiated with employees & their representatives.
> ' s


 
No one from the union has come out and explained why this was ever agreed in the first place, therefore I think it would be wrong of people to guess why it may have been brought in, either from a positive or negative manner. Even if it were as a result of productivity improvements, then it actually raises serious questions marks about the competencies and abilities of FAS management as much as staff riding the gravy train. Either way, some element of the public sector (mgnt, "workers" or both) are not covering themselves in glory here.

In large private sector companies, it would not be unusual for staff to have some time off to "get their affairs in order"(to quote the union rep on the news yesterday). Many allow their staff to attend pre-retirement courses, sometimes 2-3 days long, and I don't think the average taxpayer would have an issue with that for public sector workers. It is the scale of this, the greed of the FAS employees in looking to retain it and the incompetence of the FAS management that allowed this to happen in the first place that I have an issue with


----------



## Purple (4 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> They probably agreed to stop using the company credit card!


 or stop flying first calss


----------



## Deiseblue (4 Aug 2011)

The Examiner confirm that the pre retirement leave condition goes back to the 80's & a time when the agency was known as Anco.

This particular condition applies to 105 employees - from reading the article in yesterday's Indo one would certainly have been of the impression that the leave in question applied to all FAS employees - the Indo wouldn't be that disingenuous though would they ?

On the basis that a rather crude & arbitrary process was initiated to remove this long standing condition I am not in the least surprised that the Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of the condition pending a LC hearing.


----------



## Delboy (4 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> This particular condition applies to 105 employees - from reading the article in yesterday's Indo one would certainly have been of the impression that the leave in question applied to all FAS employees - the Indo wouldn't be that disingenuous though would they ?



it 'currently' applies to 105 employees...I have read no where that these are the only employees in FAS who will ever be eligible for it


----------



## JP1234 (4 Aug 2011)

regardless of the Who When and Why of this I just don't know how a single person from Fas would be able to face an unemployed person this morning, who maybe only had a week or a month the "acclimatise" to not working.

I have friends and relations working within the public sector and the ones 
I have spoken to all agree they would be ashamed and would not seek reinstatement or protection of such a practice. 

Frankly, this has left me speechless,and angry


----------



## Deiseblue (4 Aug 2011)

Delboy said:


> it 'currently' applies to 105 employees...I have read no where that these are the only employees in FAS who will ever be eligible for it



Front page of the Examiner this morning.

A direct quote - " of the 105 staff members entitled to the extra days , 57 are due to retire in the next six months "

As there are agreed procedures to resolve these matters & FAS abolished the scheme without consultation with Union members the matter has naturally ended up in the Labour Court where hopefully a mutually suitable solution will be found.


----------



## Purple (4 Aug 2011)

So we don't know if there are 105 currently employed and entitied to the scheme or if it was 105 in total over the lifetime of the scheme.


----------



## Mpsox (4 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> So we don't know if there are 105 currently employed and entitied to the scheme or if it was 105 in total over the lifetime of the scheme.


 
Interestingly, the union rep I heard yesterday was trying to defend it on the basis of it being pro-rata, in that you had to work 25 years to get the 70 days but if you had, for example, 10 years service, you got less. However if this scheme only applied to ex ANCO staff, then his pre-rata arguements is bogus. I can't help wondering therefore if there are 105 entitled to the full whack and everyone else simply hasn't worked long enough to get it, or is there a similer scheme for staff employed in the 90s and 00s.

As for productivity improvements, all I can say is that I worked in an office in a large FAS centre for 7 months back in 1992. The only way they could pay me was by having me registered as being on a building course and every Friday, I queued up, in my tie, with the rest of the brickies, to collect my cheque. Given what I saw in that office, the sheer amount of newspapers I read in my time there and the amount of coffee and biscuits I quaffed, if there had been productivity improvements, I dread to think what it was like in the 80s. Best of all, they actually had to give me my cert after the building course finished, so I am actually a part qualified block-layer if anyone needs a wall built.


----------



## Deiseblue (4 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> So we don't know if there are 105 currently employed and entitied to the scheme or if it was 105 in total over the lifetime of the scheme.



What the Examiner is reporting currently is that of FAS's 2000 employees 105 are entitled to the additional leave carried over from ANCO times.

Of those 57 are due to retire in the next 6 months - it's a presumption on my part but presumably these employees have enjoyed a large portion of the additional leave .

Which leaves a grand total of 48 employees who will be the most effected eagerly awaiting the results of the Labour Court hearing.


----------



## Sunny (4 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Which leaves a grand total of 48 employees who will be the most effected eagerly awaiting the results of the Labour Court hearing.


 
Which of course the Trade Union will accept!

http://www.independent.ie/national-...to-strike-over-rises-and-bonuses-2839323.html


----------



## Deiseblue (4 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> Which of course the Trade Union will accept!
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/national-...to-strike-over-rises-and-bonuses-2839323.html



Who knows ?

The LC hearing results will be patiently awaited & hopefully will be acceptable to both parties - given  the small number of employees involved & the fact that these employees held a reasonable expectatation that the condition freely negotiated in the 80's re additional leave would be adhered to I'm reasonably confident that the LC court will arrive at an employee friendly conclusion.

After all such recommendations are not binding although generally speaking all parties adhere to these recommendations.


----------



## Complainer (4 Aug 2011)

Leper said:


> I have defended the Public Service on these forums most of the time.  However, this FAS perk would not be defended by me.


I agree with you.


----------



## Sunny (4 Aug 2011)

It's not a public service thing though. It is a company specific thing. There are legacy terms and conditions in many companies and especially in the banks.


----------



## DerKaiser (4 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> It's not a public service thing though. It is a company specific thing. There are legacy terms and conditions in many companies and especially in the banks.


 
Very true.

Whatever idiot manager agreed to these perks is to blame.

As we've touched on here many times before, these outrageous benefits were not excatly the type of ideal big Jim Larkin had in mind.  

No harm protecting employees from unscrupulous employers, but what about protecting a business from the actions of idiot management!!!


----------



## Firefly (4 Aug 2011)

Complainer said:


> I agree with you.



See....it's not that hard is it


----------



## Purple (4 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> It's not a public service thing though. It is a company specific thing. There are legacy terms and conditions in many companies and especially in the banks.





DerKaiser said:


> Very true.
> 
> Whatever idiot manager agreed to these perks is to blame.
> 
> ...



Totally agree.
From what I can see the closer you get to the Civil Service the fewer perks there are and the more things are controlled. The problem is the management of the so-called "commercial" semi-states and agencies such as FAS. The fact that there are employee representatives on the boards is, I’m sure, not linked to the fact that the pay and conditions of the employees are very generous.


----------



## thedaras (4 Aug 2011)

Does anyone recognise the fact that management hands are well and truly tied?

I cannot see a situtaion where a manager would push for a conclusion with the threat of a strike/withdrawal of services etc over their heads.Unless and this is the important bit,unless they get the back up of those at a higher level!
Most of us know that when push comes to shove ,none of the ministers will want to upset the unions /have a strike on their watch/lose thousands of votes..

I think it is naive to suggest that a manager makes these decisions and that the decision is based on logic..

How can it be,when their hands are tied,the unions are on their backs,the minister wont want trouble on his watch,the staff are threatening to strike etc..to me they are the fall guys..the ones who everyone can easily blame for not making the tough decisions,when in fact most of us are aware that their strings are being pulled by so many vested interests.

A manager is only as good as his "Superior" will allow them to be!
They need back up from those at a higher level,and they dont/wont/cant get it.
Some day some minister may actually take them on..but until we get someone with some back bone,I cant see that happening..
Leo Varakar said lets be unfair to everyone in equal measures and I think that sums it up..its not about being fair to everyone any longer ,its about unfairness in equal measures.because it has to be ..IMHO


----------



## Delboy (4 Aug 2011)

your not far off the mark there thedaras. No minister wants a strike on his watch...so bizarre agreements are entered into by Mgmt and Unions to ensure peace.
And the problem with a lot of these agreements is that they then sit alongside or on top of previous agreements.....so you have 'precedent'. And that is where even the top minds on this planet would struggle to understand or make sense of.

1 example springs to mind...I presonally questioned the terms and conditions of 1 batch of employees in an organisation I worked in. I could'nt understand the basis for their  high expenses or their then outstanding claim for even more. 
So I looked into it and after much searching and asking of questions, I found that some of the reasons dated back to an agreement in the 50's for a couple of employees at the grade at that time!!! I actually found the typed documents from then in a file of a long retired staff member!!! I got a headache trying to join the dots up to the present day via all the agreements since then. Had to give up as if it went to the LRC, we all knew who'd win
Crazy system....designed to confuse and cloud every scenario so that it can be interpreted in several ways. And of course, it keeps the LRC in work as well as a troop of bearded 'worker' bees in Liberty hall !!!

I suspect some ministers would like a fight...but the cabinet and the Taoiseach will over rule every time


----------



## Mpsox (5 Aug 2011)

Delboy said:


> I suspect some ministers would like a fight...but the cabinet and the Taoiseach will over rule every time


 
Personally I think the Govt would love to see FAS go on strike over this. The employees have no moral high ground to back them up, would get no support from elsewhere in the public or private sector, they work for a body that is going to close anyway and Enda could show what a big set of liathroidi he has by facing them down. Govt couldn't loose if FAS went out on this one.


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Aug 2011)

Mpsox said:


> Personally I think the Govt would love to see FAS go on strike over this. The employees have no moral high ground to back them up, would get no support from elsewhere in the public or private sector, they work for a body that is going to close anyway and Enda could show what a big set of liathroidi he has by facing them down. Govt couldn't loose if FAS went out on this one.



A strike over this matter - not a chance !

This matter may very well drag on for some time but will ultimately be negotiated away with the help of the Labour Court.


----------



## Sunny (5 Aug 2011)

They can't go on strike because not all the employees get the perk so there wouldn't be any support. That's why FAS should just scrap the perk and stick to their original offer of a couple extra days holidays. The Unions can sing for a 'buyout' or whatever. The majority of people in FAS are probably as disgusted at the perk as everyone else.


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> They can't go on strike because not all the employees get the perk so there wouldn't be any support. That's why FAS should just scrap the perk and stick to their original offer of a couple extra days holidays. The Unions can sing for a 'buyout' or whatever. The majority of people in FAS are probably as disgusted at the perk as everyone else.



FAS removed this condition last May but were instructed to reinstate same by the Labour Court who accepted that FAS had breached industrial relations procedure by removing the condition without negotiation.


----------



## Sunny (5 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> FAS removed this condition last May but were instructed to reinstate same by the Labour Court who accepted that FAS had breached industrial relations procedure by removing the condition without negotiation.


 
FAS doesn't have to listen to the Labour Court. If the Union wants industrial action on the issue then let them.


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> FAS doesn't have to listen to the Labour Court. If the Union wants industrial action on the issue then let them.



A State body ignoring the State body charged with dealing with the country's industrial relations mechanisms - unlikely in the extreme - as evidenced by FAS reinstating the disputed condition.

I'm sure the Labour Court are aware that the sanctioning of arbitrarily removing conditions ( no matter how controversial ) would set an extremely disturbing precedent .


----------



## Sunny (5 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> A State body ignoring the State body charged with dealing with the country's industrial relations mechanisms - unlikely in the extreme - as evidenced by FAS reinstating the disputed condition.
> 
> I'm sure the Labour Court are aware that the sanctioning of arbitrarily removing conditions ( no matter how controversial ) would set an extremely disturbing precedent .


 
Just like the IBOA saying they are looking to ignore a Labour Court ruling in relation to Irish Nationwide?

Not every stupid thing has to end up in the Labour Court. Employees are not being exploited. They are not losing their jobs. They are not being redeployed. They are not being asked to take a pay cut. They are not losing pensions. They are being asked to lose a 'perk' that the majority of their colleagues don't enjoy. Where is the solidarity?


----------



## Complainer (5 Aug 2011)

Delboy said:


> your not far off the mark there thedaras. No  minister wants a strike on his watch...so bizarre agreements are entered  into by Mgmt and Unions to ensure peace.


There are several Ministers who would be quite happy to see a strike over something silly like this. It would do their macho credentials a world of good.



Deiseblue said:


> A strike over this matter - not a chance !



Correct.


----------



## Mpsox (5 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> A strike over this matter - not a chance !
> 
> .


 
I agree it's unlikely unless there are other skeletons in the T&Cs of Fas employees and given what has emerged about FAS over the last few years, nothing would surprise anyone at this stage.


----------



## Delboy (5 Aug 2011)

Complainer said:


> There are several Ministers who would be quite happy to see a strike over something silly like this. It would do their macho credentials a world of good.



are you telling me that the likes of Varadkar would'nt go in studs first a lot of the time if he thought he'd have the back up of Kenny et al. He'd be in like Flynn with CIE and the rest under his watch.
But the cabinet will not allow one minister to go rogue....not everyone at that table wants to upset the unions!


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Aug 2011)

Sunny said:


> Just like the IBOA saying they are looking to ignore a Labour Court ruling in relation to Irish Nationwide?
> 
> Not every stupid thing has to end up in the Labour Court. Employees are not being exploited. They are not losing their jobs. They are not being redeployed. They are not being asked to take a pay cut. They are not losing pensions. They are being asked to lose a 'perk' that the majority of their colleagues don't enjoy. Where is the solidarity?



Labour Court recommendations , while generally accepted , are not binding on either party.

FAS however were in breach of industrial relations procedures hence the dictat from the LC - reinstate the condition pending negotiation .

I totally agree that the majority of contentious matters should not end up in the LC as they are far better resolved at local level , when this condition was however arbitrarily removed it was destined for the LC.

As FAS currently has 2000 employees & it is envisaged that Solas will have a complement of 300 staff the vast majority of current staff will be redeployed carrying forward all current terms & conditions of employment .

Ireland as a country is probably slightly unusual in that there is a history of people doing the same job albeit on wildly differing contracts.


----------



## Delboy (5 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Labour Court recommendations , while generally accepted , are not binding on either party.
> FAS however were in breach of industrial relations procedures hence the dictat from the LC - reinstate the condition pending negotiation



therefore, as previous posters have said, FAS should just have ignored it and implemented the changes as they saw fit and proper



Deiseblue said:


> Ireland as a country is probably slightly unusual in that there is a history of people doing the same job albeit on wildly differing contracts.



Slightly unusual!!! Why do you think this is? 
I reckon it is to confuse all and sundry thereby keeping the Labour court going and justifying the small army working in Liberty Hall.....keep union officials at local level busy at meetings most of the time and away from the work they were employed to do... etc etc


----------



## Complainer (5 Aug 2011)

Delboy said:


> But the cabinet will not allow one minister to go rogue....not everyone at that table wants to upset the unions!


Everyone at the Cabinet table would be quite happy to upset the unions *on this particular issue* - it is indefensible.


----------



## T McGibney (5 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Ireland as a country is probably slightly unusual in that there is a history of people doing the same job albeit on wildly differing contracts.



A sure sign of a culture of nepotism, favouritism and petty corruption.


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Aug 2011)

Delboy said:


> therefore, as previous posters have said, FAS should just have ignored it and implemented the changes as they saw fit and proper
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The point is moot at this stage - the matter is now with the Labour Court.

FAS breached Industrial relations procedures & were forced to reinstate the pre retirement leave condition pending negotiations.

I don't understand your point regarding contracts - contracts are drawn up by employers & there doesn't seem to be standardised contracts for similar jobs in any sector , irrespective of whether Unions are involved or not.


----------



## Delboy (5 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I don't understand your point regarding contracts - contracts are drawn up by employers & there doesn't seem to standardised contracts in any sector.



You made the point that people doing the same job in an organisation can be on wildly different contracts. And that we're slight unusual in Ireland to have this.

Any new person taken on in a semi-state or civil service job is not only bound by the contract he signs....they are also subject to a dizzying array of deals, agreements, LRC rulings etc etc that have been entered into over an extended period of time by unions and Mgmt. 
Usually brought in for a specific incidence at a certain time...but then carried forward, looming large over current terms and conidtions indeifinitely. And usually entered into to avoid disputes/strikes and just to ensure peace until the next 'crisis' blows up


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Aug 2011)

Delboy said:


> You made the point that people doing the same job in an organisation can be on wildly different contracts. And that we're slight unusual in Ireland to have this.
> 
> Any new person taken on in a semi-state or civil service job is not only bound by the contract he signs....they are also subject to a dizzying array of deals, agreements, LRC rulings etc etc that have been entered into over an extended period of time by unions and Mgmt.
> Usually brought in for a specific incidence at a certain time...but then carried forward, looming large over current terms and conidtions indeifinitely. And usually entered into to avoid disputes/strikes and just to ensure peace until the next 'crisis' blows up


 
Freely negotiated changes to terms & conditions then ? - I certainly have no difficulties with that no matter what sector is involved.

Surely this is the essence of good industrial relations ?

Anyway , this discussion is going around in circles  - the matter is now with the Labour Court , let's await their findings.


----------



## thedaras (5 Aug 2011)

Complainer said:


> Everyone at the Cabinet table would be quite happy to upset the unions *on this particular issue* - it is indefensible.


It isnt indefensible to the staff involved nor the unions who are representing them though!
Bearing in mind they have refused an offer of 3 extra days leave. both the unions and the staff are looking for a buy out of it..they are trying to defend their postition..

http://www.herald.ie/news/staff-wont-move-on-fas-70day-leave-2839877.html



> Fas is understood to have made two separate offers to staff, including a "buyout" of three extra days holidays over three years, but this was rejected by the union.
> 
> cfeehan@herald.ie


----------



## ashambles (5 Aug 2011)

Not sure if this is already clarified, but in the public sector what's typically the case for people retiring with holidays built up - do they get paid for the holidays or do they have to use the days up?

Are the FAS retirees genuinely looking for extra holidays or rather a bigger lump sum payoff (on top of the 150% tax free of final salary). Save them up over the two years and you might retire with a payoff equal to 4 months salary - say 20k or so - which would help explain why embarassment isn't stopping them running to the LRC. (And why the 3 day buyout offer was given short shrift.)

It might be interesting to know how many FAS retirees have used the extra 88 days holidays as holidays. Also might be interesting to know how they account for a retiree who only announced this year they'd retire next Feb - what happens to the 44 days holiday they were "entitled" to for last year.

Incidentally the LRC is a long way from the honest broker its apologists often portray it as, any organisation with ex-ICTU and ex-BATU leadership should, at least, raise the eyebrows of sensible observers.


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Aug 2011)

The Labour Court consists of a Chairman & 2 Deputy Chairmen nominated by the Minister, 3 Employer reps nominated by IBEC & 3 Worker reps nominated by ICTU.

Seems like a representative structure to me.


----------



## Delboy (5 Aug 2011)

ashambles said:


> Not sure if this is already clarified, but in the public sector what's typically the case for people retiring with holidays built up - do they get paid for the holidays or do they have to use the days up?



they take the a/l before they retire (in the run-up to it,,,can be a serious amount of days) or if they;re going on VS at short notice, they get paid


----------



## thedaras (5 Aug 2011)

Delboy do you mean the actually have the option to take the pay instead of the leave ..the same leave that is given for an ease into their retirement?

That cant be right.. I must have read that wrong..


----------



## Purple (6 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> The Labour Court consists of a Chairman & 2 Deputy Chairmen nominated by the Minister, 3 Employer reps nominated by IBEC & 3 Worker reps nominated by ICTU.
> 
> Seems like a representative structure to me.



IBEC represents the protected sector. Foreign Multinationals have to join when they move here but the people that run it are cut from the same cloth as the people who run FAS.
Speaking as a shareholder in a business I’d pay not to be in it.


----------



## Deiseblue (6 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> IBEC represents the protected sector. Foreign Multinationals have to join when they move here but the people that run it are cut from the same cloth as the people who run FAS.
> Speaking as a shareholder in a business I’d pay not to be in it.



I agree with you.

Unfortunately , however , it appears that IBEC are accepted as the organisation most representative of employers in this country & I do believe that small & medium businesses should be represented at the table.


----------



## Deiseblue (6 Aug 2011)

thedaras said:


> Delboy do you mean the actually have the option to take the pay instead of the leave ..the same leave that is given for an ease into their retirement?
> 
> That cant be right.. I must have read that wrong..



The 105 ex-ANCO employees do not have the option of taking the pay in lieu of leave - their retirement date is set in stone & they have to avail of the pre-retirement leave in each of the 2 years prior to retirement.

If any of the employees opt for voluntary early retirement then obviously the question of pre retirement leave for the 2 years prior to redundancy no longer applies although a pro rata period of pre retirement leave may be allowed for the year during which they avail of voluntary early retirement - the Labour Court hearing should clarify matters.

I would also point out that Delboy's statement as to how annual leave is dealt with on retirement applies across all sectors - whether such retirement occurs on reaching retirement age or by earlier voluntary retirement.


----------



## ashambles (6 Aug 2011)

> their retirement date is set in stone & they have to avail of the  pre-retirement leave in each of the 2 years prior to retirement.


You sure about that? What about the early retirement schemes in place? How come there's so many going for Feb '12 indicating they are taking some sort of accelerated scheme.  

Didn't some state body (HSE?) recently have to send out a notice trying to persuade workers to give them some reasonable period of notice of a retirement - maybe 3 months or something. It doesn't seem there's any onus on workers to indicate they're retiring at all, let alone two years notice.

The independent article talks about people applying for the leave in May and allowing them to apply now, post an "LRC" meeting, and all this naturally for the coveted non salary adjusted Feb '12 retirements.

Can't see how these people can have been in a position "to avail of the pre-retirement leave in each of the 2 years prior to retirement".

By this stage unless they're doing nothing at the workplace (being FAS - that's sadly possible) effectively there's no way they could take that many days holidays over the next 6 months, certainly not if they can claim last years allowance as well.


----------



## Deiseblue (6 Aug 2011)

Absolutely certain - the retirement age is set out in your contract of employment ( for some state employees such as Teachers & Guards your contract specifies that you can retire after a set number of year's service , the contract will also specify a date on which you must retire )

In my previous post when I referred to employees availing of voluntary redundancy I should have referred to employees availing of voluntary early retirement -I have duly amended that post.

All Public Sector workers wishing to do so have to apply for the early retirement schemes & if successful a date is then set for their departure - there is certainly no question of not giving ample notice.

If you can post a link to the HSE's difficulties with the massively undersubscribed early retirements/voluntary redundancies packages that would certainly be interesting - I vaguely remember the article myself but from that vague memory I felt that the short notice period applied to those taking voluntary redundancy as opposed to those availing of early retirement.


----------



## RMCF (6 Aug 2011)

Where are the IMF in all this?

Surely they should have a big say in nonsense like this?


----------



## RonanC (6 Aug 2011)

RMCF said:


> Where are the IMF in all this?
> 
> Surely they should have a big say in nonsense like this?



Why? 

This is a small, isolated problem. The Indo, as usual has made a meal out of what really is the dressing on a side order salad. A pay and conditions agreement that relates to 105 staff, half due to retire in the next 12 months or so and you want the IMF to stick their nose in? They will be well aware of what is happening and it is up to our Government to deal with it. 

Has anyone even bothered calculating how much this retirement scheme is costing? No. 

End of.


----------



## becky (6 Aug 2011)

ashambles said:


> You sure about that? What about the early retirement schemes in place? How come there's so many going for Feb '12 indicating they are taking some sort of accelerated scheme.
> 
> Didn't some state body (HSE?) recently have to send out a notice trying to persuade workers to give them some reasonable period of notice of a retirement - maybe 3 months or something. It doesn't seem there's any onus on workers to indicate they're retiring at all, let alone two years notice.



A memo was issued to all HSE staff advising us to give 3 months notice of our intention to retire as it is expected that a lot will go in Feb 2011, as lumpsum will be based on 2008 pay rates.  This could be a couple of thousand for a consultant with 30 years plus service.  I heard our superann section has received over 100 requests for pension estimates in the last few weeks.

I'm assuming this 3 month requirement is so the HSE will have an indication by November of how many are leaving.  I have heard a lot of consultants in their late 50's intend to go by February so I assume anyone in their late 50's will seriourlsy think about it.  

Prior to that employer via the superann section use to write to the employee as provided under The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001.


----------



## RMCF (7 Aug 2011)

RonanC said:


> Why?
> 
> This is a small, isolated problem. The Indo, as usual has made a meal out of what really is the dressing on a side order salad. A pay and conditions agreement that relates to 105 staff, half due to retire in the next 12 months or so and you want the IMF to stick their nose in? They will be well aware of what is happening and it is up to our Government to deal with it.
> 
> ...



I asked because this is just one example of countless 'little' issues that all add up to make one big, usually costly, mess.

Not a week passes that I don't hear of something that makes me say "jez, I wish the IMF could hear this nonsense and come in and tell folk "this is how its happening"".

For me, 'little' things like this are symptomatic of why Ireland is in a total mess in the 1st place.


----------



## Purple (7 Aug 2011)

RonanC said:


> Why?
> 
> This is a small, isolated problem. The Indo, as usual has made a meal out of what really is the dressing on a side order salad. A pay and conditions agreement that relates to 105 staff, half due to retire in the next 12 months or so and you want the IMF to stick their nose in? They will be well aware of what is happening and it is up to our Government to deal with it.
> 
> ...



Has it been clarified that it's only 105 staff in total, ever, or us it just that there's 105 at the moment?


----------



## RonanC (7 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> Has it been clarified that it's only 105 staff in total, ever, or us it just that there's 105 at the moment?



There hasnt been any clarification either way on this, that is an issue. I'd imagine it was much higher than 105 over the years.


----------



## DB74 (7 Aug 2011)

Is there another discussion forum phrase that screams arrogance more than "end of"?


----------



## ashambles (7 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> All Public Sector workers wishing to do so have to apply for the early retirement schemes & if successful a date is then set for their departure - there is certainly no question of not giving ample notice.



This is what should happen but isn't what's happening from what I've heard personally and I think Becky backs this up with her insight into the HSE. 



			
				Becky said:
			
		

> A memo was issued to all HSE staff advising us to give 3 months notice of our intention to retire as it is expected that a lot will go in Feb 2011, as lumpsum will be based on 2008 pay rates.



There will be areas like the civil service where there's tighter management of the retirements, but in other areas it can be  a different story. Wouldn't surprise me if despite the HSE requests for three months notice that admin staff are left with prima donnas demanding next January that they want to leave within a few weeks.


----------



## thedaras (7 Aug 2011)

DB74 said:


> Is there another discussion forum phrase that screams arrogance more than "end of"?



Couldn't agree with you more.. this type of attitude is often heard around the negotiation tables,from the left side..

Its a bit like a covering your eyes ,so you can claim you saw nothing..


----------



## RonanC (7 Aug 2011)

The "End of" at the end of my post was an error, It was meant to be in reply to the IMF coming in to look at this issue. There is no need for them to come in and get involved in this. We should be sorting this out ourselves. I added more about the calculations and should have removed the end of bit, and it wasn't meant to be any form of arrogance on my part .... but sure lets nit pick over what some people say. 

thedaras, no idea what your comment is about. The Indo printed a story, did they give the full story? No, they simply printed a story and gave as much information that fits their own agenda. Stiring the Public Service bashing pot.


----------



## ninsaga (7 Aug 2011)

Trying to be sympathetic to these FAS employees - but I'm struggling with it. Especially when I think of many people in long term employment who lost their jobs and had no time to get used to it. 
Different times folks - just remember that WE THE TAX PAYERs are supposed to pay for this privilege! Well sorry but I don't want to. I'd rather that my tax money goes to other critical services like teachers and nurses. 
So FAS employees - give it up and do what is honorable. Your don't have a god given right to this.


----------



## thedaras (7 Aug 2011)

RonanC;





> thedaras, no idea what your comment is about.



My comment and DB74s, is about you using "end of",which you now say you put at the end of your post in error.. that's fine,but you cannot  expect posters to know that!


----------



## RonanC (7 Aug 2011)

thedaras said:


> RonanC;
> 
> My comment and DB74s, is about you using "end of",which you now say you put at the end of your post in error.. that's fine,but you cannot  expect posters to know that!



I understand.... do I get one lashing or two ??


----------



## Delboy (7 Aug 2011)

thedaras said:


> Delboy do you mean the actually have the option to take the pay instead of the leave ..the same leave that is given for an ease into their retirement?
> 
> That cant be right.. I must have read that wrong..



I'm not taking about the FAS guys here as I don't know how their system works. I'm talking about a few organisations that i have experience of....some guys are a year away from retirement age, they have 200 odd days a/l built up....so they go on a/l for effectively a year with full pay before their retirement then kicks in. 
Or they apply for VS, get it and it does'nt start for say 6 months. They maybe have 80-120 days a/l built up...so the VS date is agreed to start at the end of their a/l.


----------



## RMCF (7 Aug 2011)

As the person who mentioned the IMF in the 1st place, I only brought them into the debate as we often heard lines like "wait til the IMF get here, they will sort out all the nonsense" before they arrived. 

But it just appears that we continue unabated, making stupid and costly decisions that beggar belief for a country that is bust.


----------



## thedaras (7 Aug 2011)

I honestly think what beggers belief is the consistant defence of those who have these over genourous terms and conditions..
Look at Delboys post above and it would seem there is a lot more of this coming down the line.
Regardless of what others think of the Indo,we are at least getting information about whats really going on..
And who defends it..
And those who said wait til the IMF get here etc,they were probably hoping that they would sort it,but as very few people here in Ireland actually know these things are happening, what are the chances of the IMF being informed..


----------



## thedaras (7 Aug 2011)

RonanC said:


> I understand.... do I get one lashing or two ??


Well things were getting very quiet around here.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Aug 2011)

Delboy said:


> I'm not taking about the FAS guys here as I don't know how their system works. I'm talking about a few organisations that i have experience of....some guys are a year away from retirement age, they have 200 odd days a/l built up....so they go on a/l for effectively a year with full pay before their retirement then kicks in.
> Or they apply for VS, get it and it does'nt start for say 6 months. They maybe have 80-120 days a/l built up...so the VS date is agreed to start at the end of their a/l.



Absolute & utter unsubstantiated nonsense .


----------



## Delboy (7 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Absolute & utter unsubstantiated nonsense .



and your basis for that slur?


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Aug 2011)

Delboy said:


> and your basis for that slur?



Post the proof -  " I have experience of " indeed !

Totally & utterly unsubstantiated !

" 200 odd days " equates to approx 8 years accumulated annual leave - give us a break !


----------



## Delboy (7 Aug 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Post the proof -  " in my experience " indeed !
> 
> Totally & utterly unsubstantiated !
> 
> " 200 odd days " equates to approx 8 years annual leave - give us a break !



10 days a year saved by about 20 years will get you there
I have seen this first hand- I am not obliged to name and shame. Why are you so certain this is not the case???? What grounds do you have to insinuate I am lying here


----------

