Fas, 70 days off, pre retirement

Status
Not open for further replies.
Purple said:
I'm sure the usual suspects will post here justifying this practice.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
liaconn said:
Not a very fair comment - most of the 'usual suspects' don't post unsubstantiated nonsense unlike 'some' private sector workers.
Click to expand...
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..

Its just a pity that its at the taxpayers expense.
Click to expand...
We always give people the option of working a short week when they are near retirement.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The Great Defender hasn't replied yet though :p
 
Firefly said:
The Great Defender hasn't replied yet though :p
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
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:
Click to expand...
 
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?
 
Purple said:
Deiseblue isn't the Great Defender. He's quite rational some of the time ;) :p
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it's tax payers money and it was not necessary. Waste; that's the problem.
 
Purple said:
TUPE would suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Same as Fingleton's gold watch, €27m pension & €1m bonus.
 
Purple said:
The problem is that it's tax payers money and it was not necessary. Waste; that's the problem.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top