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
Fas, 70 days off, pre retirement
- Thread starter thedaras
- Start date
- Status
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
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
They probably agreed to stop using the company credit card!
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
or stop flying first calss
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
I agree with you.
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!!!
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.
- Status