Sir, – I resigned following the abolition of the Civil Service marriage bar to comply with the newly introduced rule of resigning within two years of the marriage bar removal to obtain a marriage gratuity. During my career in the health service, I worked closely with the top level of management.
I did return to the public service, as did many others.
Having resigned at a senior level, my route to re-employment was via entry level, the lowest level in the service, and I worked for eight years as a temporary staff member at the minimum of the salary scale.
This was a far remove from my earlier employment at a senior level and what was galling is the complete disregard and disrespect for my previous experience.
READ MORE
Eventually, I secured a permanent post at entry level, the lowest level in the health service, and then had the opportunity to " buy back” my previous service of 14 years at compound interest rate, a sizeable amount of money at that time.
I felt I was not welcomed back with open arms, being generally referred to as someone being from the “back to work” category.
An interesting aspect of the marriage bar is that it did not affect men; it was directly centred on the female workforce, and was certainly a misogynistic piece of legislation.
The caveat in the legislation was that if women wanted to avail of their gratuity with two years they had to resign their position. There was no similar legislation in relation to the male staff.
Female staff who resigned to avail of their gratuity, a great help in setting up home on marriage, but those who later returned to work were faced with a massive financial hurdle.
If they wanted to bring their pensions up to date they had to “buy back their years of service”. A gratuity of £5,000 drawn down on marriage meant that a person retuning to work and wishing to “buy back” their years would have to borrow seven times the amount of the gratuity.
That “payback sum” was arrived at by way of compound interest.
It is not in the remit of many women to be able to muster up that kind of money because of the fact that many of them would have children at third level with prohibitive costs for books, fees, accommodation, food and travel being the priority.
It is belittling on the part of Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe to say that the Government cannot compensate these women affected by the marriage bar while at the same time referring to that legislation as “bonkers law” and also stating that “the way the women were treated was wrong”.
You can’t have your cake and eat it.
The situation in which female staff found themselves as a result of the marriage bar is as a result of government legislation. The buck stops there. Amends should be made to women who have suffered financially and in their careers as a result of this legislation.
Perhaps this is an issue which could be taken up by the Irish National Women’s Council and Mná na hÉireann. – Yours, etc,
MARY CARMODY,
Portlaoise,
Co Laois.
