A friend of mine working in an Institute of Technology gets 54. He says he has the best job in the country.When I worked for the public sector, I got almost 50 days off per year : 30 days holidays, 12 days flexi days and 6 uncertified sick days.
To get a flexi day you had to work up a full day per month over and above the 6hr36 working day. This was very easy to do.
Sick days were definitely not mandatory but were 'encouraged'.
Can someone please tell me - why did I leave?!?
Yes but 6.5 hours a day is a very short working week (8-3 with a 30 minute break) so working what amounts to a full week (40-45 hours) will give you your flexi-days in no time.Flexi days are not days off, they are days worked up in advance.
Yes but 6.5 hours a day is a very short working week (8-3 with a 30 minute break) so working what amounts to a full week (40-45 hours) will give you your flexi-days in no time.
The unions are not asking for free PR. They're asking for balanced reporting.
In relation to your first question, I consider the Sunday Independent the worst offenders as do many other civil servants who refuse to buy it anymore because of their constant ranting against the civil service. I have no objection to fair criticism of the civil Service in the media and have often criticised aspects of it on this board myself. I object to lies and to unbalanced reporting.
OK, 42 hours a week; still a short working week (42 hours is average in the private sector, 34.5 is average in the public sector).Civil Servants work 7 hours a day, excluding a lunch break which has to be taken outside of those hours and in your own time. You have to work up an extra 7 hours to get a flexi day. I'm not sure where Birroc worked, but it definitely wasn't the Civil Service.
Well, they obviously didn't consult a union rep when they printed Michael O'Leary's comment.
As I said, I've no objection to fair criticism, but subjective rants from the likes of Brendan O'Connor, with no balancing article elsewhere in the paper, really annoy me. However, we obviously have to agree to disagree as this could go on and on.
if you factor in a lunch break, which I'm sure the Private Sector does, it goes up to 40 hours.
It's a press release from O'Leary that received minor changes and was printed as an article. It's not PC or CS bashing from a newspaper, it's just knowledge that whenever O'Leary comes out with some extreme statement, it gets attention.
And before the next logical point about journalistic prudence in compiling the article (i.e. mixing in different views), note that it's the exact same principle applied to all union generated press releases. It's copy to fill the pages and it's rarely altered.
So it's fine when it's a union agenda I suppose, but not when it's the other extreme.
No, the figures are based on hours worked, lunch breaks are extra. In that context it does matter as the 7 flexi-hours will just being both to the same working week. In fact if those figures were used the private sector people work up an extra day each week!
How was taking sick days 'encouraged'?
Its not an extreme statement, its a blatant and damaging lie which was printed, uncorrected, by the newspaper. You don't work for the Indo by any chance?
This wasn't a press release, it was an article compiled by one of their senior reporters. The difference between compulsory and entitlement greatly changed the statement in this case. My brother works in the media and, believe me, he checks and rechecks every fact and figure before it sees the light of day. But then, he's a highly regarded professional and wouldn't print a blatant untruth because he 'didn't have time' to verify it.
Well let's just say I wasn't tortured to take my sick-days. Everyone knew how many they had taken and how many uncertified sick days they had left. Managers had no problem with people using their sick days if they had run out of holidays.
Well let's just say I wasn't tortured to take my sick-days. Everyone knew how many they had taken and how many uncertified sick days they had left. Managers had no problem with people using their sick days if they had run out of holidays.
It's an article compiled based on an O'Leary statement.
I'm not defending the practice at all, I'm just saying that it is very common and it works both ways. To say it is only ever applied to the detriment of the PS and CS is false.
Kudos to your brother and I wish that's how it was across the media but it isn't. Again, I hate how agendas are hidden behind false statements and statistics, but this is never questioned by the media. Again, it's agendas across the spectrum of political and social issues that aren't challenged. It's a broad probelm with the media and not just focussed against one group.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?