Thats before strikes reduced that still further. As your looking for €400M per week. I can see why maternity in the public sector would be such a burning issue.
Should (100% topup) paid Maternity Leave in the Public Service be abolished.
- Thread starter TheBlock
- Start date
Thats before strikes reduced that still further. As your looking for €400M per week. I can see why maternity in the public sector would be such a burning issue.
It's not, this is just a discussion.
If it's €1.7 million in the HSE then it's over €3.0 million in the entire public sector. Given that we will not save €00 million a week but should look to save at least half of that then this one measure will yield over 1% of total savings. That's a very substantial amount in the overall context.
Seems to work a treat.
Is this something you know for a fact?
Compared to the €850 million on 5% SW cuts?
It's €3 million a week. That's €150 million a year so yes, it's quite a lot.
The fates of all Irish Banks are intertwined. If one went, I would be amazed if they all wouldn't tumble like a house of cards. Just look at what Lehman going bust did? Irish banks had to be saved as they are the life source of money for companies in this country. Most international banks are either pulling out or scaling back their operations here (or at the very least, not lending due to higher rates of return in their own markets).
I know plenty of people thanks!
Unfortunately these "better Companies/Jobs" are leaving Ireland due to uncompetitiveness.
No lets target all areas where money's being wasted on perks we can no longer afford.
I don't really have a problem with the maternity benefit of €280 for 26 weeks. It's that additional top up that Public sector workers get to take then up to full pay that I was highlighting. This top up is not avaialable to everyone and seeing as the public sector is paid for by the taxpayer why should thay have benifits that not all taxpayers have.
Fair enough, but given the 44% increase in the term of maternity beneift entitlement would have unlikley to have happened if there was not a proprty boom, do you think the government should cut back a bit on this benefit now that revenue is down?
We’re not going to get out of this mess by just cutting public sector costs and taking perks away from public sector employees that private sector employees think they don’t deserve. This has nothing to do with fairness per se, it’s about facing the harsh economic reality. In that light reducing maternity top-up for public sector employees would save money but reducing maternity leave to 2000 levels would help to stimulate the wealth creating private sector.
Thats the point I was making. The massive increase in taxes from the property boom enabled to the government to increase spending in many areas, not just public pay.
If the government had taken a decision to cut every item of spending by 10-15%, followed up by targeted savings in areas like PS numbers, means testing child benefit, tax relief for investors etc, they would be well on the way to closing the gap.
But is this the Remit of An Bord Snip?
nope, but it is the remit of the government
Well, I am speaking as a recent daddy where my wife does not get full paid up maternity leave that we should not touch this benefit for public or private sector workers who are lucky enough to have it.
I can see how it would be very beneficial for babies and mothers to get 6 months paid leave and therefore, great for society.
6 months is the norm elsewhere, it is very short sighted to look at this benefit as something that can be cut. We only relatively recently came up to standard with 6 months so lets leave it, it pays for itself in the long run.
I can see how it would be very beneficial for babies and mothers to get 6 months paid leave and therefore, great for society.
6 months is the norm elsewhere, it is very short sighted to look at this benefit as something that can be cut. We only relatively recently came up to standard with 6 months so lets leave it, it pays for itself in the long run.
"Elsewhere" is not as deep in the mẽrd as us so they can afford it, we can't.
BTW, how does it pay for itself in the long run?
Even if it does we need the money now.
Yeah but I think you will find that most experts in these matters insist 6 months is required leave - I mean, it makes sense to me: sending a 3 month old baby into a creche is unthinkable to me as a recent daddy. 6 months is the minimum age.
It pays for itself in terms of more content babies, less social problems and expenses etc in young adults (men) etc... a bit wishy washy but I bet there is a study out there proving it.
Look, babies are the future, these kind of cuts should be worst case scenario.
I have three kids, number fuor will be here in a few weeks (all going well), so I do know what's involved. I see no good reason why 6 months is needed. It would be great if the first 12 months was paid for. Then again it would be great if we could all just stay at home and someone else paid for everything but we can't.