What about the point that they have already paid for it through employers PRSI?
What about the point that they have already paid for it through employers PRSI?The only point I'm making here is that there _are_ companies making profits. Therefore, the justification that companies should not pay redundancy because none are making profits does not hold up.
What about the point that they have already paid for it through employers PRSI?
Well, they can apply for a 60% rebate:
Is that just for the statutory part?
An employer who has paid his/her employee their correct statutory redundancy lump sum
Redundancy is compensation to someone who has had their contract of employment terminated. What is so obscene about that? You don't have to be a raving lefty to believe that it is just and appropriate for someone to be compensated after having their financial means removed on a uni-lateral basis.
I think a possible middle ground proposal would be to leave statutoy redundancy in place but abolish the government 60% rebate. This saves the Govt money and employers will not be so quick to let people go at the first sign of a drop in business.
The same people who took all their hard earned pay related bonuses, Christmas bonuses, profit share bonsus for the last 30 years as shares in Waterford Wedgewood - shares that were meant to put their kids through college and see them into their retirement which are not worth ZERO.
Tell that to the hundreds of Waterford Crystal workers who were unceremoneously sacked a few months ago. The majority of whom will never get another job of a similar pay and have mortages, debt, tennagers in college and families to feed. The same people who took all their hard earned pay related bonuses, Christmas bonuses, profit share bonsus for the last 30 years as shares in Waterford Wedgewood - shares that were meant to put their kids through college and see them into their retirement which are not worth ZERO. Tell it to the 60 year old guy who was about to face into a reasonable retirement with his shares and his long paid for pension which is now worth possibly 20% to 30% of what it should be. The guy who hasn't a hope of getting a job in this country because all he knows is one skill which is no longer required.
ITs somewhat funny but mostly nausiating to hear that people think that these hard working men and women should be thrown on the scrap heap with no statutory redundancy, no ex-gratia payments - no pension. It must be a nice little world where you live !
I take it that you are talking about the same Waterford Crystal workers who were paid massive wages throughout the 70’s and 80’s and into the 90’s. The same ones who resisted modernisation and change with strikes and the threat of strikes? Waterford Crystal was a baldy run company making a product that nobody wanted. They had 20 years to sort themselves out and they blew it. They was doomed.
Bonuses may have been paid in shares (a common practice in PLC’s) but there was nothing forcing anyone to keep those shares. Just like every other share owner if they kept them they have lost their shirt. If they were close to retirement and kept their retirement money in shares then they were stupid and have nobody to blame but themselves. That’s not to say they don’t deserve sympathy but that’s about it. The collapse of the company pension fund is an entirely different thing.
I’d say it’s a combination of both. The management bought industrial peace in the 70’s and 80’s by giving large pay increases but didn’t develop the brand (like Newbridge Silver did)The collapse of the company was indeed due to bad management who deserve more than what they got. It was not down to the people employed there.
No financial advisor would advise that someone keep their investments in shares as they approach retirement. People are responsible for their own lives.You are assuming that everyone keeps an eye on the stock market and is financially savvey and if not then they are stupid ! How arogant is that ?? I know for a fact that a vast majority of people, not only in WC , take shares as their bonus, trust the people who sell them like the financial "experts" who have caused this country's downfall, and are then left picking up the pieces when it all goes to the wall.
That statement manages to be both condescending and patronising at the same time. The owners of Waterford Crystal have lost hundreds of millions attempting to keep the company afloat. The people employed there are, I would suggest, no more “simple” than you or I or do you think that people who work with their hands are all simpletons?It's this arogant attitude that has the simple people of this country left in the lurch while the guilty walk away with their wallets full.
It’s also paid for by the employer with PRSI contributions that are almost twice as high as those made by employees. Why should the employer have to pay for this twice?Statutory redundancy is a right paid for by PRSI contributions from people's own paypacket.
This is a discussion forum. It’s also a free country. That’s why I dare.How dare anyone suggest that this become yet another nail in the coffin for people losing their jobs through no fault of thier own.
So the other 40% is irrelevant... I see. Would you feel the same way if statutory redundancy payments were reduced by 40%?The employer doesn't pay statutory contributions. That is the point. The government pays the majority of it. about 60% So your point about the employer paying for it twice is irrelevant.
So you’re saying the company wasn’t badly run. I thought it was but it seems I was wrong. Oh, what about the years before and after 98 and 2002?Your point about not developing the brand since the 70s and 80s is just plain wrong. In the years from 98 through to 2002 the company made massive profits. The introduction of the designer brands like John Rocha, Jasper Conran and other American designers had a massive impact.
If I had over a hundred thousand euro in shares you can be damned sure I’d be watching the market every day. If I had my life savings in shares when I was close to retirement then yes, I’d be very stupid. If I thought that share prices could not collapse a matter of a few weeks then I’d be ignorant of how the stock market works.The people who worked there are intelligent, normal people who have excelled at their jobs like anyone else. They are not financial experts nor do most of them check share prices every day and if you're trying to tell me that everyone who lost over a hunder thousand euro in shares when they collapsed in the space of a couple of weeks are stupid then it's you who are ignorant of how the stock market works.
This is a thread about whether redundancy should be paid at all. I can see strong arguments for and against. The point I have been making is that by paying their taxes and employers PRSI the employer fulfils their social obligation. If someone needs financial support after they lose their job that burden should fall on the state. The general thrust of the thread is can the government afford to pay this in the current circumstances.Also you are missing the point in the first place. The point is that why should people who have had so much financial hardship forced on them due to inadequate management by the so-called intelligent financial experts who managed their company so badly for so many years, be slapped down when they come to claim their last shred of hope in the form of their statutory entitlements. ?
I’ve lost money because of stupid and/or high risk investments but I knew I was gambling so I won’t moan about it.Im guessing that the people who think this have never been in this position.
It amazes me how people can make bad decisions and refuse to take responsibility for them.
Like loaning billions of euros to developers at the height of a property bubble.