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.
CUTS TO CHILD benefit payments announced today will unfairly target precisely those families who are already most at risk of poverty and hardship, a charity has warned.
In today’s Budget, the Government announced cuts to welfare payments for families with three or more children. Monthly benefits will be reduced to €148 for the third child, down from €167.
For all subsequent children the monthly rate will fall to €160, where previously families had received up to €177. Further cuts are on the way with the payment to be “standardised” at €140 for all children in the next two years. Minister for Public Expenditure Brendan Howlin said the measure would save €43million.
Children’s charity Barnardos said the cut would unfairly target larger families who are already suffering disproportionately in the recession. Calling the measure “mean-spirited” and “unfair”, spokesperson June Tinsley told TheJournal.ie that Barnardos are “very concerned for larger families.”
“These families are already at higher risk of poverty, and this will push further families into deprivation,” she said. “If you add in cuts to the Back to School allowance and school transport schemes, larger families especially those in rural areas will be put under severe pressure.”
The Government also announced cuts of up to 25 per cent to the Back to School allowance, and the end of extra grants paid to parents of twins and triplets.
“For larger families, it could mean the difference between – are they able to pay their ESB bills? Are they able to buy school books for their children?” Tinsley added.
Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton said larger cuts had originally been slated for her Department, but she had succeeded in reducing the total spending reduction to €475million.
However, Sinn Féin TD Mary Lou McDonald said the welfare cuts would be “sucking €475million out of local economies”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Interestingly the rise in the phenomenon of presenteeism is just as damaging to companies. Presenteeism is when employees turn up for work when they really should stay at home. As a result they are less than productive and if they are ill spread their illness to others in the company.
I don’t know about any other business, but where I work we pick up the slack whenever anybody is out sick. The work needs to be done one way or another. Its not costing the company anything, its costing the rest of the employees in terms of increased workload. Basically this is just more BS from IBEC.
“HEAR HEAR”. Well said Jim. This is utter trash and it infuriates me.
BTW did anyone see The Apprentice with Mr Alan Sugar (hate the title)? An inventor had an idea for a chair to help workers backs and decrease absenteeism. Sugar told him he didn’t give a sh*te about absenteeism. It doesn’t, nor has it ever affected his business. It’s only petty greedy people who seem to view this as a problem.
When I see this in the news, it means there’s NO news.
I wonder how much is written off by people coming in early, working through lunch and staying late 5 days a week. perhaps IBEC would be better served commission research on how to reduce sick days / redress the work life balance.
How on earth can that be recorded with any degree of accuracy?
You’ll have to look at the methodology the researchers use. Often it is cited in industry magazines when these surveys are conducted. It is nearly always cited in robust research in respected journals. Certainly levels of absenteeism are pretty easy to capture as those responsible for HR, payroll and accounting have to record those as a matter of course. Presenteeism I agree is another story. But I believe it both can and has been done within acceptable levels of validity and reliability.
ONLY 1% of female absence due to drink? Not a hope in hell.
I certainly don’t cost my employer €818 per year in absenteeism. I don’t think that would be possible on my meager earnings. Deciding to use a figure as an average when the gulf of earnings is so unequal in many sectors is insulting and disingenuous (but this is IBEC after all). If I’m not mistaken a greater chance of true illness occurs with low earners, that is genuine absenteeism as they forgo health checkups/gp visits or drugs to pay for other necessities unless drastically concerned. Its not taking the piss, its as a result of groups such as IBEC pushing downwards on their earnings. if IBEC want to minimize that maybe they should propose free employee health schemes/checkups or just pay the slaves a bit more.
Perhaps IBEC should commission a study on how much it costs when the boss or an executive or one of their little expensive clique decides not to turn up. An overpaid fat executive paid 10 times the amount of a regular grunt would have to ensure an absenteeism rate 1/10th of said grunt so as not to inflict a higher financial loss on their company. Lets not even discuss productivity or their exec buddies. But its not about our betters is it.
Its hard to take any figure, whether based on raw statistical data or otherwise, from a group of individuals who, if given half a length of lease, would tear the flesh from every employees rights, wages or conditions, just to eek out something more for themselves. When I see IBEC, I see the HSE or Foxconn in China, no better.
I’ll stop writing and put back on my metal collar.
Each person loses 1 year out of their working life through absence
have your say