Go Back   Askaboutmoney.com > Campaigns, consultations and financial debates > The great financial debates

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 01-02-2012, 01:48 PM
Firefly Firefly is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Lumpsum payments to those retiring

This isn't a PS rant before I begin, but in the current climate we need to cut costs. By and large, those retiring from the public sector have had a continuous job for life with pay as good as in the private sector. On top of that they have pensions which those in the private sector could ony dream of. Therefore with this lifelong earning and generous pension, they should be ready for retirement...so...is there any justification for these lumpsum payments?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-02-2012, 02:54 PM
Brendan Burgess Brendan Burgess is offline
 
Location: Dublin
Posts: 23,050
Default

I would go further and say that there is no justification for redundancy payments of any kind, statutory or non-statutory, public or private sector.

People should be paid fairly for the work that they do when they do it. They should not be paid when they are not working.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-02-2012, 04:00 PM
Slim Slim is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
This isn't a PS rant before I begin, but in the current climate we need to cut costs. By and large, those retiring from the public sector have had a continuous job for life with pay as good as in the private sector. On top of that they have pensions which those in the private sector could ony dream of. Therefore with this lifelong earning and generous pension, they should be ready for retirement...so...is there any justification for these lumpsum payments?
With respect, I think it is a PS rant. Many retire in the private sector with often non contributed occupational pensions of 66% of Final salary. Public sector workers have endured lower pay than private sector for decades, hence the recruitment crisis in the 90s as the celtic tiger started to take off. Only a few years ago, private sector employees mocked their public sector friends for sticking with dead-end, low-paid jobs. Only the recent couple of years has turned then tables somewhat. Many Public Sector workers who are retiring his month are close to retirement age anyway and have accrued these entitlements over nearly 40 years.

The lump sum on retirement is an accounting equivalent of the difference between the 50% public sector pension and the 66% private sector pension.

I would agree with you on the obscene packages paid to those at the top of the public/civil service. Greater obscenities have been bestowed on those in charge of the banks over the past few years, not to mention government ministers.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-02-2012, 04:19 PM
Purple Purple is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Suburbia
Posts: 5,928
Default

Can Slims post be split to a different thread?
I'd like to reply as most of it is incorrect and I'd hate to think anyone would read it and be mislead, but it's also off topic.
__________________
Better to be a man of character than one of means
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-02-2012, 05:19 PM
Chris Chris is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Burgess View Post
I would go further and say that there is no justification for redundancy payments of any kind, statutory or non-statutory, public or private sector.

People should be paid fairly for the work that they do when they do it. They should not be paid when they are not working.
I agree Brendan, there should be no law forcing to pay redundancy. If employers and employees are willing to put some sort of redundancy agreement in an employment contract then so be it., but this should not be forced by law.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-02-2012, 08:32 PM
ANORAKPHOBIA ANORAKPHOBIA is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 83
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple View Post
Can Slims post be split to a different thread?
I'd like to reply as most of it is incorrect and I'd hate to think anyone would read it and be mislead, but it's also off topic.
With respect I would contend that Slim is making more sense than the other posters in the thread.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-02-2012, 11:13 PM
onekeano onekeano is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Dublin
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Burgess View Post
I would go further and say that there is no justification for redundancy payments of any kind, statutory or non-statutory, public or private sector.

People should be paid fairly for the work that they do when they do it. They should not be paid when they are not working.
Should they be paid when they are out sick Brendan?

Roy
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-02-2012, 08:48 AM
Protocol Protocol is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Northwest
Posts: 1,891
Default

Pension lump-sum payments are not redundancy payments.

They are a reflection of the difference between the 50% pension in the PS and the typical 66% pension in non PS DB pensions.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-02-2012, 09:08 AM
Firefly Firefly is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protocol View Post
Pension lump-sum payments are not redundancy payments.

They are a reflection of the difference between the 50% pension in the PS and the typical 66% pension in non PS DB pensions.
As per Purple's post it would be very easy to drag this off topic (the vast majority of private sector workers do not have such a pension). In any case these private sector pensions are only as good as the employer's finances (Look at what happened the workers at Waterford Crystal). In any case, the taxpayer has to borrow money to pay these lumpsums and in the current climate I can't see any justification for this. There is already an excellent pension as well as a job for life that went before it so surely this provides the employee with enough?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-02-2012, 10:00 AM
Purple Purple is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Suburbia
Posts: 5,928
Default

Must ...try... to...stay...on...topic...
__________________
Better to be a man of character than one of means
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:08 PM
Protocol Protocol is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Northwest
Posts: 1,891
Default

Firefly,

I agree that workers should make more conts, which they now do.

I think that existing PS pensions should take a bigger cut.

But focussing too much on the lump-sum gets away from the idea that it is just the captalised value of the 16% difference in pensions.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:09 PM
Protocol Protocol is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Northwest
Posts: 1,891
Default

Some senior civil servants get a severance payment of 1 years pay, as well as the normal lump-sum.

I am against that.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:19 PM
44brendan 44brendan is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,378
Default

Whether we (as the non public sector taxpayers) are against or for the payment of these monies appears to be largely ignored by the decision makers.
Yes, the decisions on the issues are made by the Government. However, the advisors to the Government on these issues would themselves be Public Sector workers with a high level of personal interest in the decision making process.
My difficulty with these payments is the effect of the "Yes Minister" type of decision making. I.e. The process may be fair and equitable, but it is not open. If we could be assured that the decisions on these issues were impartial and based on commercial ralities rather than partiality, we would feel more comfortable with them.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:37 PM
Firefly Firefly is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protocol View Post
Firefly,

I agree that workers should make more conts, which they now do.

I think that existing PS pensions should take a bigger cut.

But focussing too much on the lump-sum gets away from the idea that it is just the captalised value of the 16% difference in pensions.

Most private sector workers do not get these pensions so why should the public sector worker get this lumpsum? Indeed, it looks like the best of what's offered to some in the private sector is given to all in the public sector in this case. There are plenty who get nothing from their employer so why not match this in the public sector?

In any case it doesn't matter. The employer (in this case the government/taxpayer) is broke. costs need to be cut and this looks like a politically easy one for me...afterall it's the closest thing to free money.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-02-2012, 02:12 PM
ashambles ashambles is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 306
Default

Id consider the tax treatment of the lump sum an uglier problem. Seeing senior public servants or ministers retire with several hundred thousand euro tax free, is obscene. They remind me of Leona Helmsley who said taxes are for the little people.

I realize theyve capped the amount that can be drawn tax free, seemingly tax free up to 200k, then 20% up to 575k, and 41%+USC beyond that. Still too generous and whos asking for this to be even partially tax free, on the private sector side Id guess no one but the wealthy.

The whole justification for pension tax relief is that you dont pay on the way in, but do on the way out. Nobody with any sense of fairness would expect tax relief on the way in and out.

Any defense about being contractually obligated to pay these out is nonsense, just tax them at near 100%.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-02-2012, 02:24 PM
Purple Purple is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Suburbia
Posts: 5,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protocol View Post
But focussing too much on the lump-sum gets away from the idea that it is just the captalised value of the 16% difference in pensions.
Repeating that over and over again doesn't make it true.
The 16% is nonsense, utter rubbish.

New entrants to the Public Sector are being screwed to pay for those who are closer to retirement. Solidarity how are ya. Typical unions; protecting the have's from the have-not's.
If only screwing the new entrants was enough though. The fact is that general taxation is used to pay the gold-plated pensions of the grey cohort in the Public Sector and even if it wasn’t existing deductions/contributions from pay wouldn’t come anywhere close to funding the pension cost.
Greed and selfishness by public sector workers over the last decade, looking for and getting massive pay increases that increased the gap between average public and private sector pay rates (and don’t even look at their terms and conditions), have left us with a situation where classes are getting bigger in schools and queues are getting longer in hospitals. If these ridiculous lump-sums were stopped and pensions were cut by the same rates that pay has been cut then lives would be saved and children with special needs would get the care they need. But for that we’d need more public servants, and more particularly more public sector unions, who care more about providing services to the public and less about getting their snouts in the trough. (why not construct the above comparison since paying debts etc is usually blamed by the unions etc).
I know teachers who are still bemused about the pay increases they got over the last 10 years. They would have preferred to see smaller classes, better schools and more support resources.
__________________
Better to be a man of character than one of means
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-02-2012, 10:43 AM
Chris Chris is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onekeano View Post
Should they be paid when they are out sick Brendan?
Sick pay is not mandatory, but yet most employers offer it anyway; employers and employees decide on sick pay between themselves. The same should apply to redundancy pay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44brendan View Post
Whether we (as the non public sector taxpayers) are against or for the payment of these monies appears to be largely ignored by the decision makers.
Yes, the decisions on the issues are made by the Government. However, the advisors to the Government on these issues would themselves be Public Sector workers with a high level of personal interest in the decision making process.
My difficulty with these payments is the effect of the "Yes Minister" type of decision making. I.e. The process may be fair and equitable, but it is not open. If we could be assured that the decisions on these issues were impartial and based on commercial ralities rather than partiality, we would feel more comfortable with them.
Well said.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 28-02-2012, 08:52 PM
W200 W200 is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
This isn't a PS rant
Correct me if im wrong but were not all PS jobs advertised publicly when such vacancies arose with all conditions attached.
If YOU did not wish to apply for such jobs and instead decided to stick to the private sector perhaps charging Euro 2 per brick laid or Euro 10 per lenght of copper pipe bent them I suggest you backed the wrong horse my friend.
Perhaps you should look at where you got it wrong before suggesting how those who took the steady but dependable path should suffer .
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 28-02-2012, 09:46 PM
putsch putsch is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W200 View Post
Correct me if im wrong but were not all PS jobs advertised publicly when such vacancies arose with all conditions attached.
If YOU did not wish to apply for such jobs and instead decided to stick to the private sector perhaps charging Euro 2 per brick laid or Euro 10 per lenght of copper pipe bent them I suggest you backed the wrong horse my friend.
Perhaps you should look at where you got it wrong before suggesting how those who took the steady but dependable path should suffer .
What is "public" sector and what is "private" sector? Are AIB and BoI public sector? This discussion is so simplistic as to be meaningless. So I'd just like to offer some observations.

I have worked in both public sector and private sector. When I worked in the public sector in the dark days of the 1980s and 1990s my salary was a pittance beside that of my private sector equivalents - all professionals like me. But I couldn't afford to buy a house - they bought large houses in nice suburbs, I got a 10 year old banger - they had brand new cars. I continued to work at the job because I believed in it.

Working now in the "private" sector I am amazed at the perks that still exist despite the economy.....I never realised the scale of the bonuses available, the share option schemes, the pension contributions, the car allowances, the health subscriptions paid and even the sports club subs - all these regarded as routine in some parts of the private sector. Very nice too.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 28-02-2012, 10:38 PM
W200 W200 is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 103
Default

[QUOTE=putsch;1246476]What is "public" sector and what is "private" sector? Are AIB and BoI public sector? This discussion is so simplistic as to be meaningless. So I'd just like to offer some observations.

I have worked in both public sector and private sector. When I worked in the public sector in the dark days of the 1980s and 1990s my salary was a pittance beside that of my private sector equivalents - all professionals like me. But I couldn't afford to buy a house - they bought large houses in nice suburbs, I got a 10 year old banger - they had brand new cars. I continued to work at the job because I believed in it.

Working now in the "private" sector I am amazed at the perks that still exist despite the economy.....I never realised the scale of the bonuses available, the share option schemes, the pension contributions, the car allowances, the health subscriptions paid and even the sports club subs - all these regarded as routine in some parts of the private sector. Very nice too.[/QUOTE

Perhaps Brendan " Gimme a few bob for my website Burgess " might consider this before unleashing his next condimnation of the public service,
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:39 AM.