Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE MUNSTER EXPRESS newspaper was banned from the JobBridge scheme for two months after the Department of Social Protection found that they breached rules under the scheme.
At press conference in Dublin this morning organised by ScamBridge.ie, journalism graduate Martin Malone said that he was given no mentoring at the Munster Express, claiming it is now selling photographs he took to benefit the newspaper:
I very rarely had any contact with the assigned mentor apart for the odd nod in the offices. The Munster Express clearly used JobBridge to provide them with services that they would otherwise have to pay for. They were aware that it was displacing work. They had no intention of providing any training or development of the intern they took on.
Malone made an official complaint to the department alleging that he was required to supply his own equipment for the role and that the hours of work exceeded the 60 hours a week allowed.
The newspaper denied the allegations saying that he was indeed given mentoring “commensurate with our judgement and his abilities”. They rejected that he was required to work more than the allowable hours, saying that the position was assignment based and would take 30 hours a week to complete.
The company also said that there was “no substance” to the allegation that they were using JobBridge to displace paid labour.
The Department of Social Protection say they launched an investigation after Malone’s complaint to them and, in a addition to banning them from hiring photographers in JobBridge, they say that:
Future JobBridge placements will be regularly monitored to ensure that appropriate mentoring is provided and that therms and conditions of the scheme are adhered to.
The Munster Express was also banned completely from the JobBridge scheme for a period of two months from October. But Malone said their penalty is insufficient:
The sanction they applied, does not, in my opinion, really penalise the company. They have been barred from hiring a photographer or videographer under the scheme but are still free to hire interns in other areas. I feel that this has largely let them off the hook and is no real punishment.
Socialist Party MEP Paul Murphy also criticised the penalty and added that all companies who have been investigated by the department should be named.
“There are apparently 35 companies which have been banned so far from JobBridge. Munster Express is the first to be named as Minister Joan Burton has allowed the rest of them to hide. This must be ended,” he said.
Murphy also wants the money that was paid to the Munster Express to be repaid to the state and Malone be compensated for the work he did while an intern there.
- Additional reporting by Hugh O’Connell
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“Keep the recovery going”
TDs: Wahey, we get a €5k pay rise!
Health workers: Where’s our pay rise?
Fine Gael: Well, we haven’t recovered that much now…
@Franklin Roosevelt: the economy has recovered very significantly since the 2007 implosion , I know that’s not popular acknowledge here but it is true
@Franklin Roosevelt: apologies hadn’t read comment properly
Maybe a.silly statement but ” voluntary organisations” funded by hse . What makes it voluntary if the workers are being paid ?
@Chris Tobin: as far as i know that title entitles them to legally receive charitable donations. So the HSE funding isn’t 100% of their income.
@Stephen Foster: voluntary only in name for tax reasons so
@Chris Tobin: They are service providers to the HSE who would have to do the support and rehab work they do. Section 39 groups as is mentioned in the article.
Please check out the difference before statements that quiet simply are wrong and uninformed.
The HSE pay for the staffing of them to do the work, the charitable donations are used directly to help the clients more than they could if only relying on HSE funding
I honestly wish people would learn more about the section 39 groups before commenting . The misunderstanding above are frightening.
Funding was cut, wages were cut, so as not to affect the clients IE me and other disabled people who rely on these groups.
The charitable donations go in special activities or training for the clients.
The group that help me received a 64% increase in requests for support and had a 15% cut in funding.
DO THE MATH.
Are these people employees of the HSE though? It doesn’t sound like it as they are section 39 companies who receive funding from the HSE as they are effectively charities or do charity classified work. SIPTU are looking for the HSE to increase grants to these designated charity organisations it seems so that they can be used to fund salary increases. This is comparing apples with oranges surely. I’m not sure how this is comparable with PS pay increases.
@Sean @114: hse funded ” voluntary organisations” so
@Chris Tobin: they are providing funds. They are not the employer and there is no obligation on HSE to provide more funds for salaries as it is not the employer. SIPTU comparing apples to oranges here. The gripe is with the employer surely.
@Sean @114: No you have it wrong completely. Not surprising as a lot of people do. It would take too long to explain. Section 39 groups do work for the HSE and they are paid like any other service provider. The wages were cut in line with the PS wages and what they are asking for is parity.
@Gary Kearney: The HSE provide recurring grants for these agencies but are not a direct employer of their employees. You will find none of them on the HSE payroll.
@Alan McCartney: But this came up in 2014 relating to top-up payments.
The HSE engaged with “section 39 organisations regarding their obligations under their service agreements with it not to pay or subsidise salaries, expenses or other benefits which exceeded those normally paid in the public service.”
If their pay was capped then, they’re saying it would be fair to match it with HSE wages now.
@Alan McCartney: correct, not the employer. They may ‘subsidise’ section 39 agencies but they do not employ these staff. At least that was always my understanding. If they were let go would they receive a P45 from the HSE employer registered company? I don’t believe so.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: yes obligations under an agreement which sees funding received from the HSE. They set guidelines that certain payments should not exceed those in line with their own. It makes sense to do so. Nowhere would it make sense to agree to pay ‘increases’ for non employees.
@Alan McCartney: and they can match it all they want from current funding levels.
When the inefficiencies are gone from the health service and some savings made, review pay and apply where possible.
The amount of €uros wasted on administration for administration sake is what cripples the guys of the budget.
SIPTU won’t hear tell of it because our affects their income.
You’d cringe at the salaries the top table are paid in these unions. Jack O’ Connor is on €149k folks.
@Murph: examples please.
Sack them all and get the army to take over.
@Peter Barlow: What, march into nursing homes and help them all into clean uniforms? Shout out their medication in relays?
@Peter Barlow: I hope none of your family ever need these services.
have your say