Originally Posted by alonso

i rest my case

Originally Posted by Finbar10

If a person has been on temporary contracts in the same position for four years or more, the employer is legally required to offer them a permanent contract. Four years seems to be the cutoff point in Irish employment law. I know two people in my local authority who have been employed just under four years (one for about 3.5 years, the other for maybe only a month less than the four years) and they are both being left go. The one with less than a month to go is desperately trying to see if they can make up the gap with holiday entitlements etc. but still narrowly falls short. I think they are both pretty unlucky. If the **** hadn't hit the fan for another six months they'd both now be permanent. Seems the local authority is at the moment cutting all the temporary positions that it can.

Originally Posted by selfemployedmar

No why should anyone in this country avail of tax exemption, its disgraceful, I also agree with minimum wage people paying tax, as the minimum wage is high in Ireland. €346 per wk is a good decent wage

Originally Posted by essexboy

An English resident *****was given permission to build a large, prominent house near me, subject to nine conditions. He ignored them all and built what looks like a bungalow to the rear without permission.
I complained to the county council who sent him a letter; he then applied for retention which he received without any bother.
Why bother with planning rules when they are not enforced?
*****

Originally Posted by Watcher1

You're kidding, right?

Originally Posted by Watcher1

Our HR officer said that once a person has been employed on a full time basis for a year, they have the same rights as permenant. The 4 year period is much out of date I believe.

Originally Posted by selfemployedmar

One yr is correct and on a further note part-time employees actually have more rights than permanent, if they look in to it correctly.
Try Entemp.ie

Originally Posted by essexboy

An English resident *****was given permission to build a large, prominent house near me, subject to nine conditions. He ignored them all and built what looks like a bungalow to the rear without permission.
I complained to the county council who sent him a letter; he then applied for retention which he received without any bother.
Why bother with planning rules when they are not enforced?
*****

Originally Posted by Watcher1

I hear you. Couple behind us built an extension to the back of their house (I live in a housing estate). The extension was not confined purely to the back and in fact extended about 15 inches to the side of the original back wall. I complained to the council as they did not even have permission (not sure if the whole extension was below the 40m2 exemption). Anyway, the council wrote back to me a few times and said that they inspected the development which they deem to be in compliance. Now, there was no planning permission sought and they extended to the side. I cant see how that was in compliance but if someone with greater knowledge of planning laws here can confirm I'll stand corrected.

Originally Posted by alonso

i think any extension below the limit does not require permission