Career Breaks for Civil servants

M

Marathon Man

Registered User
Messages
176
Times are hard. We all have to cut back, tighten our belts, downsize, cost cut etc. The following is a great example of how our wonderful Government is saving (taxpayers) money

Up to now, civil servants could take up to 5 years leave of absence without pay. Now, because of the cut backs, we're going to offer them 3 years instead of 5 and to compensate for the loss of 2 years, and to save money, we're going to pay them 1/3rd of salary or €12,500, whichever is the lesser. :rolleyes::mad::eek:

See this for info.
 
Absolute disgrace.
Bear in mind though that some of them are "employed " but not "working" :)
 
Civil Servants can still take up to 5 years unpaid career break, depending on length of service. To avail of the new incentivised scheme, you must commit up front to taking the full 3 years. The two schemes are seperate. In the current climate, I don't see many people wanting to avail of this to be honest. Anyone with a mortage to pay or a spouse in the private sector whose job might be less secure wouldn't be able to avail of it. Three years is too long to commit to.
 
Its a way of cutting the public sector pay bill, which people have been screaming for. While they're on their career break, remaining public servants will take on their work load. Would you prefer they just made a load of public servants redundant, paid them statutory redundancy and then had them drawing the dole? How would that work out cheaper for the tax payers?
 
From the link you posted..

A career break may be allowed for family reasons, other domestic purposes (e.g. care of a relative), travel abroad, self-employment and educational purposes.

unreal...you can take a chance in the private sector whilst still being paid by the taxpayer and if it goes pear-shaped you can then go back to work in 3 years. No wonder we're in the mess we're in !
 
Yes, Firefly, you can do exactly that. Mind you, from listening to ISME over the last weeks and months, no one in their right mind would start their own business at the moment. Its unfair to say that you can take your chance in the private sector - you can't. You can take a chance on your own business - not the same thing.

When a similar scheme was announced by one of the building societies a few months ago, I don't remember anyone posting in outrage along the lines 'no wonder the banks are in the state they're in' :rolleyes:

*awaits usual arguments re taxpayers money etc etc by posters who think the public sector don't pay any tax*
 
Last edited:
Funny, when PTSB introduced a similar scheme it was hailed as a creative, innovative way to reduce payroll costs during a serious downturn but still retain in the longer term the services of trained, experienced, dedicated staff.

When the civil service does the same thing, it's a waste of taxpayers money for those lazy evil scroungers who are probably creeping round the back of the taxpayer right now to pick his pocket of his last shilling.
 
liaconn said:
Would you prefer they just made a load of public servants redundant, paid them statutory redundancy and then had them drawing the dole?
Click to expand...

Now there's an idea! I'm glad you mentioned it.

liaconn said:
How would that work out cheaper for the tax payers?
Click to expand...

well, using a few quick back of the envelope calculations:

A civil servant on the average industrial wage, €37,000 - you won't find too many of those! - would get 3 x €12,500 while they're out on this scheme = €37,500. Previous to this they'd get nothing.

Using someone with 1 dependant and 20 years service, they'd get €19,812 statutory redundancy (using Gov. on line calculator) and they'd be entitled to jobseekers benefit, approx. €340/w = €52884 over the three years, totalling €72,696. Their salary had they stayed would have been €111,000. Thus saving €38,304 in direct payments.

Of course there is the loss of their income tax & prsi and the various levies, but they'd still be liable for some tax and prsi on their dole. However the now saved cost of servicing the balance of their public service pension would reduce the overall bill further.

IMHO, a full cost benefit analysis should be done for all public service jobs before filling any position and definitely before any quango is created. Either outsource or scrap any that fail to make the hurdle.

..Oh....and introduce PROPER benchmarking, with measurable deliverables, and accordingly reduce salaries to private sector levels - making actuarial allowances for pension servicing too.

Disclosure: Mrs MM is a public servant
 
MarathonMan

You would not get jobseekers allowance if you were on a career break . That's the point I was making.
 
Nor would any public servant employed before 1995 and subsequently made redundant be entitled to jobseekers benefit. Before any consideration of a redundancy scheme, this would have to be addressed.
 
Just to elaborate on my original point. If the Government wants to reduce the public sector pay bill they can make workers redundant and pay them redundancy and social welfare, or they can offer them an incentive to go and only come back when natural wastage will mean that there will be jobs for them to fill (as their own posts will have been abolished). Either way, the government is paying them some money towards their upkeep and the career break is probably the cheapest way to do it. As long as they reduce public sector numbers, why do you care if its in the form of career breaks or redundancies?
 
Dreamerb said:
Funny, when PTSB introduced a similar scheme it was hailed as a creative, innovative way to reduce payroll costs during a serious downturn but still retain in the longer term the services of trained, experienced, dedicated staff.

When the civil service does the same thing, it's a waste of taxpayers money for those lazy evil scroungers who are probably creeping round the back of the taxpayer right now to pick his pocket of his last shilling.
Click to expand...


Absolutely agree, for once an innovative measure to save money, 12,500 now to save on average 90,000 wages over three years? sounds great to me. Of course you have to factor in the Tax the public servant would be paying over those three years but still a good idea I think. Of course the idea won't be given much merit because it's concerns the public service which is a dirty word at the moment.
 
liaconn said:
Either way, the government is paying them some money towards their upkeep and the career break is probably the cheapest way to do it. As long as they reduce public sector numbers, why do you care if its in the form of career breaks or redundancies?
Click to expand...
That's it in a nutshell. In the real world of political compromise I think this is an excellent idea.
 
A civil servant on the average industrial wage, €37,000 - you won't find too many of those! - would get 3 x €12,500 while they're out on this scheme = €37,500. Previous to this they'd get nothing.
Click to expand...

So, example 1: Saving = (Salary * 3) - (1/3 salary * 3) = Saving of €74,000
Using someone with 1 dependant and 20 years service, they'd get €19,812 statutory redundancy (using Gov. on line calculator) and they'd be entitled to jobseekers benefit, approx. €340/w = €52884 over the three years, totalling €72,696. Their salary had they stayed would have been €111,000. Thus saving €38,304 in direct payments.
Click to expand...
Example 2: Saving = (Salary * 3) - (redundancy payment + [let's just say they stay unemployed due to the current economic conditions] (156 * 204.30) ) = €111,000 - (€24,720 + €31,870.80) = Saving of €54,409.20

I don't know where you got your redundancy figures from - the figure I have above is based on the redundancy caluclator on the ETE website.

We're evidently using different envelopes because I'm pretty sure that makes the first one better over the three year period envisaged.
 
Dreamerb said:
I don't know where you got your redundancy figures from - the figure I have above is based on the redundancy caluclator on the ETE website.
Click to expand...

Oops 1..... I put in the wrong dates. Your figure is correct.

Dreamerb said:
So, example 1: Saving = (Salary * 3) - (1/3 salary * 3) = Saving of €74,000

Example 2: Saving = (Salary * 3) - (redundancy payment + [let's just say they stay unemployed due to the current economic conditions] (156 * 204.30) ) = €111,000 - (€24,720 + €31,870.80) = Saving of €54,409.20

.......

We're evidently using different envelopes because I'm pretty sure that makes the first one better over the three year period envisaged.
Click to expand...

..Oops 2
they're redundant! They're not coming back after 3 years....and they've been done without, without replacement for 3 years. Why would you then replace them? After 3 years, the saving is €37k p.a. forever!

wrt other posters point on PTSB, that was a private entity before, with no taxpayers money going in. I think things would be different now. ...or should be - I don't think reality has hit home with the bankers yet!
 
Marathon Man said:
Oops 1..... I put in the wrong dates. Your figure is correct.



..Oops 2
they're redundant! They're not coming back after 3 years....and they've been done without, without replacement for 3 years. Why would you then replace them? After 3 years, the saving is €37k p.a. forever!

wrt other posters point on PTSB, that was a private entity before, with no taxpayers money going in. I think things would be different now. ...or should be - I don't think reality has hit home with the bankers yet!
Click to expand...


You're missing the point. These people will take a 3 year career break and their posts will not be replaced. When they come back (and a lot of them won't) they will slot into vacancies arising because of retirements, people leaving etc. Its one of a package of staggered measures to reduce the numbers in the public service. It will also help management to identify necessary and non-essential posts, which jobs can actually be done by one instead of two people etc. While they are doing this, they are also reducing the pay bill for the next three years in respect of these individuals (apart from any other measures they take). Its an efficient and humane way of getting people out. You seem to be more interested in seeing public servants suffer than seeing the public sector streamlined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top