# Newry Traffic Chaos



## bamboozle (24 Nov 2009)

word coming through is there are huge tail backs in traffic around Newry, 

good to see the strikers multi-tasking!


----------



## micmclo (24 Nov 2009)

Since schools are closed a lot of parents are taking annual leave.
A few in our office anyway and we're not alone

Not just the strikers gone shopping


----------



## aonfocaleile (24 Nov 2009)

The strikers are perfectly entitled to head for Newry today. They're not being paid if out on industrial action, so they can do what they like!


----------



## bamboozle (24 Nov 2009)

aonfocaleile said:


> The strikers are perfectly entitled to head for Newry today. They're not being paid if out on industrial action, so they can do what they like!


 

hmmmm...should they not be doing what they're meant to do?  ie...picket their place of employment for their working day???


----------



## Caveat (24 Nov 2009)

aonfocaleile said:


> The strikers are perfectly entitled to head for Newry today. They're not being paid if out on industrial action, so they can do what they like!


 
Of course they can - does it not strike you as somewhat hypocritical though considering the circumstances surrounding the reasons for their strike action?


----------



## micmclo (24 Nov 2009)

bamboozle said:


> hmmmm...should they not be doing what they're meant to do?  ie...picket their place of employment for their working day???



Picketers are rostered by their strike committee.
If a council office has 50 staff on strike you don't have 50 people out in the rain all day today.
Each member does a few hours and that's all you have to do.


----------



## truthseeker (24 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> Of course they can - does it not strike you as somewhat hypocritical though considering the circumstances surrounding the reasons for their strike action?


 
Yes. It strikes me as extremely hypocritical - however, unless someone polls the shoppers we wont ever know if the majority are in fact people like parents who decided to go shopping for the day with the kids because the kids were off school or people who are supposed to be striking.


----------



## VOR (24 Nov 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Yes. It strikes me as extremely hypocritical - however, unless someone polls the shoppers we wont ever know if the majority are in fact people like parents who decided to go shopping for the day with the kids because the kids were off school or people who are supposed to be striking.


 
You are right but perception is reality and the damage is done. Therefore, it's a PR disaster.


----------



## truthseeker (24 Nov 2009)

VOR said:


> You are right but perception is reality and the damage is done. Therefore, it's a PR disaster.


 
Yes I would agree with that analysis.

Just out of interest - where is it being reported that tailbacks in Newry are so bad?


----------



## Betsy Og (24 Nov 2009)

Is there any great point in picketing a place thats shut anyway? Obviously its not possible to cross a picket line even if you wanted to.


----------



## Purple (24 Nov 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> Is there any great point in picketing a place thats shut anyway? Obviously its not possible to cross a picket line even if you wanted to.



I'd give it a go


----------



## VOR (24 Nov 2009)

BBC news and RTE 1 O'Clock news.


----------



## Caveat (24 Nov 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Just out of interest - where is it being reported that tailbacks in Newry are so bad?


 
RTE lunchtime news.


----------



## ney001 (24 Nov 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Yes I would agree with that analysis.
> 
> Just out of interest - where is it being reported that tailbacks in Newry are so bad?



Just heard it on 2fm news!.  Also said that there was another strike day planned before the budget........ sure they'd have to, they spent this strike day shopping!


----------



## Caveat (24 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> I'd give it a go


 
Thought you might - I'd join you.

I'm hoping to find some novel way of showing my disapproval of strikers as it happens - not sure what I'll do.  Might have a few more chances before the year is out it seems.


----------



## TarfHead (24 Nov 2009)

ney001 said:


> another strike day planned before the budget


 
40 days of action = 40 days of not having to pay salaries = a large chunk of the 4bn needed to close the income & expenditure gap  ?


----------



## dockingtrade (24 Nov 2009)

micmclo said:


> Since schools are closed a lot of parents are taking annual leave.
> A few in our office anyway and we're not alone
> 
> Not just the strikers gone shopping


.

True, but its a result of the strike. 
Now less tax dollars to pay the wages. T
hey must be rubbing their hands up there when the unions announced the possiblity of more strikes.
And now because of the tailbacks people might head up the night before and spend more tax dollars in B&Bs etc.


----------



## frash (24 Nov 2009)

*Strikers go xmas shopping in NI*



Another strike on Dec 3rd just in case they missed any bargains.


----------



## quarterfloun (24 Nov 2009)

*Re: Strikers go xmas shopping in NI*

From RTE: 

"Social and Family Affairs Minister Mary Hanafin has said anyone who chose to shop north of the border today should reflect on the damage they are doing to the economy.
Ms Hanafin said she understood that everyone was currently seeking the best value when doing their shopping but people should think of the consequences when deciding where to go".

If she did her bloody job right in the first place nobody would be going. 

Vive la Revolucion!!!


----------



## aonfocaleile (24 Nov 2009)

So its hypocritical for public servants to avail of cheaper prices in NI, but its ok for the thousands of non-public sector workers who do it every weekend? Please. Its just a poor excuse to moan about the public sector


----------



## starlite68 (24 Nov 2009)

aonfocaleile said:


> Its just a poor excuse to moan about the public sector


 we dont need a poor excuse!....we have plenty of good ones.
the public sector should be ashamed of themseles.


----------



## Sconhome (24 Nov 2009)

aonfocaleile said:


> So its hypocritical for public servants to avail of cheaper prices in NI, but its ok for the thousands of non-public sector workers who do it every weekend? Please. Its just a poor excuse to moan about the public sector



If the public servants are on strike to show their displeasure at how they are being treated by the Government and to have a show of strength to show how better off the private sector is, what the hell are they doing shopping or at any other place than their picket line?

I don't care about rosters or any other union talk, if you have an issue that is so important that you care enough to shut your office then you should be on the picket line.


----------



## mf1 (24 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> Thought you might - I'd join you.
> 
> I'm hoping to find some novel way of showing my disapproval of strikers as it happens - not sure what I'll do.  Might have a few more chances before the year is out it seems.



I'm there with you guys! 

My biggest gripe today was my elderly, somewhat bewildered mammy being left without her Meals on Wheels. Fair enough, family stepped in for her but what about the many, many elderly, somewhat bewildered  mammies ( and daddies, aunties, singletons etc.,etc)  who don't have families and who went without that lifeline today?

I'm afraid I found myself snarling as I saw all the pickets today. 

Not a pretty sight. ( Both me snarling and dem damn pickets!)

mf


----------



## dockingtrade (24 Nov 2009)

*Re: Strikers go xmas shopping in NI*

people were wondering in some other thread if the unions can afford to pay their members if there were widespread strikes... Im sure Newry chamber of commerce might help them out


----------



## Squonk (24 Nov 2009)

*Re: Strikers go xmas shopping in NI*

I don't know why the panic shopping today....don't the public sector get an allowance of a half-day to do their Xmas shopping?!


----------



## bogle (24 Nov 2009)

Sconhome said:


> ...
> ...
> 
> I don't care about rosters or any other union talk, if you have an issue that is so important that you care enough to shut your office then you should be on the picket line.




Are you another one of these silly right wing posters who seem to inhabit this forum?

Most of these self proclaimed captains of industry don't seem to be able to do an uninterrupted full days work (for their employer) without posting some gibberish here several times a day!

If you want to tell unions how to organize their pickets you're more than free to join one and state your case!


----------



## z107 (24 Nov 2009)

A week or so ago I was disgusted at the idea of public sector strikes. The country can't afford their wages, private sector people losing their jobs, etc, etc...

Then I thought about it a bit more and realised that I was directing my ire at the wrong target. These people are simply trying to protect their standard of living. They have mortgages and financial commitments etc. The real target should be the Irish Government.

We desperately need to fix the economy. We need to stop borrowing huge amounts of money to keep the country running. (The cash taps may soon be switched off anyway) *Unfortunately, the Irish Government do not seem to be helping.*

They are making no attempt to create jobs. All their measures seem to be fire-fighting. If rumour is true, the next budget seems to be comprised of swingeing cuts, so they can pump more of our money into failed banks.

A dire situation caused by the Government. Not caused the public sector.


Oh, and I don't think any of the opposition parties would fair any better. How depressing.


----------



## Purple (24 Nov 2009)

umop3p!sdn said:


> A week or so ago I was disgusted at the idea of public sector strikes. The country can't afford their wages, private sector people losing their jobs, etc, etc...
> 
> Then I thought about it a bit more and realised that I was directing my ire at the wrong target. These people are simply trying to protect their standard of living. They have mortgages and financial commitments etc. The real target should be the Irish Government.
> 
> ...



The government can't create jobs, not real ones that create wealth anyway. They need to do everything they can to reduce costs and reduce spending and when the country becomes price competitive again we’ll start to create jobs. Anything else it just like blowing air into a burst balloon


----------



## bogle (24 Nov 2009)

umop3p!sdn said:


> ...
> ...
> Then I thought about it a bit more and realised that I was directing my ire at the wrong target. These people are simply trying to protect their standard of living. They have mortgages and financial commitments etc...



Dude you are probably the most intelligent poster on this forum!

Over the last 6 to 8 months there has been a deliberate campaign by certain parts of the media to scape goat the CS/PS for the state of this country. Yes of course there are problems with the CS/PS and yes they have a role to play like all stake holders in turning this country around but I just wonder, who benefits the most when the blame gets deflected from one party to another like this? 

By and large I think it has been very counter productive and the ironic thing is that I think its going to backfire. I observed zero hostility from members of the public towards picketers today! I'm sure this fact is going to disappoint some of our more right of center outraged posters here!


----------



## Lex Foutish (24 Nov 2009)

bogle said:


> over the last 6 to 8 months there has been a deliberate campaign by certain parts of the media to scape goat the cs/ps for the state of this country. Yes of course there are problems with the cs/ps and yes they have a role to play like all stake holders in turning this country around but i just wonder, who benefits the most when the blame gets deflected from one party to another like this?


 
+1


----------



## Lex Foutish (24 Nov 2009)

*Re: Strikers go xmas shopping in NI*



Squonk said:


> I don't know why the panic shopping today....don't the public sector get an allowance of a half-day to do their Xmas shopping?!


 
??????????


----------



## Purple (24 Nov 2009)

*Re: Strikers go xmas shopping in NI*



squonk said:


> i don't know why the panic shopping today....don't the public sector get an allowance of a half-day to do their xmas shopping?!



lol


----------



## bogle (24 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> The government can't create jobs, not real ones that create wealth anyway. They need to do everything they can to reduce costs and reduce spending and when the country becomes price competitive again we’ll start to create jobs. Anything else it just like blowing air into a burst balloon



Remind me then who was it that got sanction from the Europe Union to implement the 12.5% corporation tax!

"During the Rainbow Government of 1994-7, Minister of Finance Ruairi Quinn reduced corporation tax to 12.5% on trading income,a policy that has been continued by subsequent Ministers of Finance. This is generally believed to have been an important stimulus for the Celtic Tiger."


----------



## Purple (24 Nov 2009)

bogle said:


> Remind me then who was it that got sanction from the Europe Union to implement the 12.5% corporation tax then!
> 
> "During the Rainbow Government of 1994-7, Minister of Finance Ruairi Quinn reduced corporation tax to 12.5% on trading income,a policy that has been continued by subsequent Ministers of Finance. This is generally believed to have been an important stimulus for the Celtic Tiger."



The corporation tax rate on the manufacturing sector was 10% (introduced by a Charlie Haughy government if I recall correctly). The EU found that this was illegal so the government was forced to standardise it. The 12.5% rate was agreed by Ruairi Quinn in negotiations (to phase it in) with the EU. It was Charlie McCreevy that actually introduced it.

That said I think Quinn was an excellent minister for finance. Once Buy-everyone-Bertie was in power all sound reasoning went out the window.


----------



## mathepac (24 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> ... I'm hoping to find some novel way of showing my disapproval of strikers as it happens - not sure what I'll do...


I was thinking of organising a picket of Newry shopping centre to shame the strikers back to work. But then I heard (on the RTE wireless news) that if the entire CS / PS stayed at home for a day the saving in wages for the Minister for Hardship would be €60m so I'm on the horns of a dilemma as to my placard slogan and the location for my protest - 

*"Get Back to Work Ye Lazy Unpatriotic Feckers"* in Newry or

*"Strike More, Shop Foreign More, Save More"*  outside public buildings.

What do ye think?


----------



## Lex Foutish (24 Nov 2009)

mathepac said:


> I was thinking of organising a picket of Newry shopping centre to shame the strikers back to work. But then I heard (on the RTE wireless news) that if the entire CS / PS stayed at home for a day the saving in wages for the Minister for Hardship would be €60m so I'm on the horns of a dilemma as to my placard slogan and the location for my protest -
> 
> *"Get Back to Work Ye Lazy Unpatriotic Feckers"* in Newry or
> 
> ...


 
What do I think? I think that's a really funny post!


----------



## z104 (24 Nov 2009)

Cut income or cut numbers in public service. It's not a nice decision but there is really no alternative.

No permanent public sector employee has lost their job yet. 

Borrowing 44 million per day to pay wages cannot go on indefinetly.


----------



## Complainer (24 Nov 2009)

micmclo said:


> Since schools are closed a lot of parents are taking annual leave.
> A few in our office anyway and we're not alone
> 
> Not just the strikers gone shopping


Yeah, but that won't make tabloid headlines, so it won't get the coverage. RTE's news coverage of this issue was outrageous, presenting it 'clear evidence' that the shoppers were strikers, which consisted of;
- 1 young bloke saying 'yer man is on strike'
- 1 older lady saying 'sure of course all of them would be shopping'

Vincent Brown was interviewing picketing nurses at the Mater today, most of whom were picketing on their day off, as their colleagues were inside on duty. Will that make news/tabloid headlines?


----------



## ney001 (24 Nov 2009)

*Re: Strikers go xmas shopping in NI*



Squonk said:


> I don't know why the panic shopping today....don't the public sector get an allowance of a half-day to do their Xmas shopping?!


Jaysus now you've done it!


----------



## Lex Foutish (24 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> Yeah, but that won't make tabloid headlines, so it won't get the coverage. RTE's news coverage of this issue was outrageous, presenting it 'clear evidence' that the shoppers were strikers, which consisted of;
> - 1 young bloke saying 'yer man is on strike'
> - 1 older lady saying 'sure of course all of them would be shopping'
> 
> Vincent Brown was interviewing picketing nurses at the Mater today, most of whom were picketing on their day off, as their colleagues were inside on duty. Will that make news/tabloid headlines?


 
What is understood doesn't have to be discussed.


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

*Re: Strikers go xmas shopping in NI*



Squonk said:


> I don't know why the panic shopping today....don't the public sector get an allowance of a half-day to do their Xmas shopping?!


Certainly not in my agency, though it was one of the informal perks when I worked in the private sector.


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

Niallers said:


> Cut income or cut numbers in public service. It's not a nice decision but there is really no alternative.


THere are alternatives. Cut the €4billion planned spend on Anglo-Irish next year instead of cutting €4billion from services. That's one of many alternatives. This Govt has no mandate to cut public services.



Lex Foutish said:


> What is understood doesn't have to be discussed.



The old 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story' approach, I see. For more measured coverage, see [broken link removed]. Based on the small sample, some were strikers, some were not.


----------



## Mpsox (25 Nov 2009)

*Re: Strikers go xmas shopping in NI*



Complainer said:


> Certainly not in my agency, though it was one of the informal perks when I worked in the private sector.


 
I've heard of it in some areas in the public sector but the same applies in some areas in the private sector as well, I know we do it where I work. It's a simple cheap perk that always goes down well and we have rules in place that if we need to cancel it at short notice for operational reasons, then so be it

I don't blame anyone for going across the border, I do it myself and I find it hypocritical of a Minister in a so called Republican party to criticise people for doing it. After all, for years FF said we were all one on this island. I go across the border for better service, cheaper prices and the perception that I am being ripped off in the South by many retailers.

As for public sector workers going shopping, I do know of 2 people in different areas who were not union members, did not want to take a day off but were told by their managers that their unit would be closed on the day. One of them went North, can't say I blame her.


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

*Re: Strikers go xmas shopping in NI*



Mpsox said:


> I don't blame anyone for going across the border, I do it myself and I find it hypocritical of a Minister in a so called Republican party to criticise people for doing it. After all, for years FF said we were all one on this island. I go across the border for better service, cheaper prices and the perception that I am being ripped off in the South by many retailers.


Indeed - utter hypocrisy, particularly as public procurement procedures oblige public bodies to look beyond our borders to seek best value for products and services, while our Ministers tell us to shop at home.


----------



## Latrade (25 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> THere are alternatives. Cut the €4billion planned spend on Anglo-Irish next year instead of cutting €4billion from services. That's one of many alternatives. This Govt has no mandate to cut public services.


 
I'd agree the Anglo-Irish is a complete lame duck. However, disagree with the last bit. If the government has no mandate to manage public spending, who does? If the government had the mandate to increase the PS, it has the mandate to decrease the PS.

On the shopping in Newry, the damage is done. No matter how many or little were those on strike, there's no way of actually knowing or checking. It was a huge PR disaster. Rightly, the unions are trying to avoid giving any direct answer on it.

Realistically though: 250,000 PS/CS withholding labour compared to how many parents taking time off work? Couple thousand? Statistically, it's more likely that a greater proportion were PS/CS enjoyed a day out.


----------



## gianni (25 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> Realistically though: 250,000 PS/CS withholding labour compared to how many parents taking time off work? Couple thousand? Statistically, it's more likely that a greater proportion were PS/CS enjoyed a day out.


 

What about the parents of the 500,000 school going children (under 14) who were not in class yesterday. Where do they fit into your equation ?

Do Public Sector workers have a 'look' about them (or about their cars) that allows commentators to readily identify them ??

The word of one young man talking about his mate (off camera) and the car park attendant in Sainsburys seems to suffice....


----------



## Latrade (25 Nov 2009)

gianni said:


> What about the parents of the 500,000 school going children (under 14) who were not in class yesterday. Where do they fit into your equation ?
> 
> Do Public Sector workers have a 'look' about them (or about their cars) that allows commentators to readily identify them ??
> 
> The word of one young man talking about his mate (off camera) and the car park attendant in Sainsburys seems to suffice....


 
So you're saying every single parent was off work? We know 250,000 or so PS/CS employees were. The amount of parents in a position to take time off is nowhere near that scale. 

While some did take a day out of their own annual leave because of the strike, nice, it was not at the same level as 250,000. All parents I know remained in work and had alternative arrangements (largely because they couldn't afford to take the time off) or one parent took the time off. A more reasonable estimate of the number of those where both parents took the day off is a couple of thousand.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> While some did take a day out of their own annual leave because of the strike, nice, it was not at the same level as 250,000.


 
How many parents would be inclined to go shopping up north WITH the kids in tow?


----------



## Staples (25 Nov 2009)

truthseeker said:


> How many parents would be inclined to go shopping up north WITH the kids in tow?


 
The feast day/school holiday of 8th December has traditionally been a busy shopping day for the very reason that the kids are off; there's no tie to the usual school routine and there's more scope to plan excursions. Doing anything with kids in tow, including holidays, is probably more hassle but you have to take advantage of any opportunity that's offered.

However, even if the people going to Newry yesterday were public servants, I'd say "so what?". They were already down a day's pay and they went to the north at their own expense just as their counterparts in the private sector would. 

Given the choice between a day's pay and the opportunity to save a few euro in the north, most people would choose the former but if you're already off, what's the big deal?  You could raise the old chestnut of whether going shopping in the north is unpatriotic but that's not an argument particular to this thread.


----------



## VOR (25 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> some were strikers, some were not.


 
So at the end of the day of strike we had McLoony giving in to cuts and pictures of the PS "strikers" shopping in Newry.
Well done unions. You managed the strike as efficiently as you run the public sector.


----------



## RonanC (25 Nov 2009)

Where is the proof that any of these shoppers were striking union members? There is no proof at all! 

All *speculation*... Hmmmm that word is familiar isnt it.

And just for the record, Not every PS/CS employee is a member of a union, and what those non union members do on their day off is up to them. Nobody has a right to even question what they do on their own time off.


----------



## VOR (25 Nov 2009)

The damage is done. BBC, RTE and all newspapers have run with the story. I am sure the bearded brethern will issue a circular before the next shopping trip.


----------



## liaconn (25 Nov 2009)

Picket duty started at 8am and everyone was required to do a two hour stint. Therefore, many striking workers would have been able to head North (along with the thousands of parents whose kids were off school) to shop after their picket duty.
As for saying everyone should have been out on the street all day. What a load of nonsense. If everyone in my building had picketed at the same time we would have completely blocked the street. No doubt, you would then have been complaining about 'intimidation'.
People are constantly moaning about the Public Service not being efficient. When picket duty was organised in an efficient way you moan about that.


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

VOR said:


> So at the end of the day of strike we had McLoony giving in to cuts and pictures of the PS "strikers" shopping in Newry.
> Well done unions. You managed the strike as efficiently as you run the public sector.





VOR said:


> The damage is done. BBC, RTE and all newspapers have run with the story. I am sure the bearded brethern will issue a circular before the next shopping trip.


Folks - Don't feed the trolls. When they have to resort to schoolyard namecalling, you know they have run out of real issues to complain about.


----------



## Staples (25 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> Folks - Don't feed the trolls. When they have to resort to schoolyard namecalling, you know they have run out of real issues to complain about.


 
Exactly what I was thinking.  The level of debate has descended along predictable lines.


----------



## Ham Slicer (25 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Picket duty started at 8am and everyone was required to do a two hour stint.



Not true.  My brother works in the HSE (union member) and he was not rostered and had the day off.  Many of his colleagues likewise.


----------



## liaconn (25 Nov 2009)

When you say he was not rostered, I presume he didn't put his name down on the roster. He obviously  ignored the fact that picket duty was compulsory and let other people do all the slog. Nice! I wouldn't like to have him on my team at work.

However, I agree with Complainer. People are obviously trying to find any angle at this stage to attack the public service.


----------



## VOR (25 Nov 2009)

Perhaps if you had been laid off you would feel differently.  But then again that will never happen to any of you.


----------



## becky (25 Nov 2009)

Ham Slicer said:


> Not true. My brother works in the HSE (union member) and he was not rostered and had the day off. Many of his colleagues likewise.


 
I'm HSE and had 3 hours picket duty assigned to me. We didn't volunteer for picket it was expected of all union members.  There are 300 union members in my workplace so there were 3 time slots starting at 8.30am.

I don't doubt there were union members who were not rostered for picket duty but your brothers case is not a reflection of case in the HSE.


----------



## Ham Slicer (25 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> When you say he was not rostered, I presume he didn't put his name down on the roster. He obviously  ignored the fact that picket duty was compulsory and let other people do all the slog. Nice! I wouldn't like to have him on my team at work.
> .



No - as I said he wasn't rostered.  He was told he would not have to join the picket.  Not sure how you conclude he's not a team player from that.


----------



## liaconn (25 Nov 2009)

Sounds very strange. In my Department we were asked to select a slot by a stated deadline. Anyone who didn't reply was just assigned a time. 
From what Becky says, this is what happened in the HSE as well, where your brother works. Did he enquire why he wasn't needed? This was definitely not typical of how the strike operated through out the public service (although there were, of course, the usual *minority* of shirkers who did their best to avoid picket duty).


----------



## Ham Slicer (25 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Sounds very strange. In my Department we were asked to select a slot by a stated deadline. Anyone who didn't reply was just assigned a time.
> From what Becky says, this is what happened in the HSE as well, where your brother works. Did he enquire why he wasn't needed? This was definitely not typical of how the strike operated through out the public service (although there were, of course, the usual *minority* of shirkers who did their best to avoid picket duty).



I'm not having a long deabte about this.  I'm just saying he was not rostered and not required to picket.  He was told the roster was full so he wasn't required. He was not the only one in his department of 8 who did not have to picket.  I don't know or care if this was typical but these are the facts. 

You stated earlier - Picket duty started at 8am and everyone was required to do a two hour stint.  

As I said this was not true.  Full stop


----------



## liaconn (25 Nov 2009)

I'm not asking you to have a 'long debate'. I'm clarifying, for the benefit of other posters, that this was not typical and we were not all just having a day off with picket duty not required/optional which might have been the impression given by your post. As I am entitled to do.  Full stop!


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

I wonder if this is anything to do with on duty/off duty. The general principle (I think) is that if you are not scheduled to work that day, you are not expected to picket. I know there are many exceptions to this, particularly where essential services are being provided throughout the dispute.


----------



## MANTO (25 Nov 2009)

Its unfortunate the PS are being slammed like this - sure who wouldnt head North anyway, if the government are going to slash PS wages - better deals for your money is required.

I know i will be heading up to get my TV €400 cheaper! So if i was working in the PS and supporting a family - too right i would be getting my kids toys cheaper up north.

So much for all the threads supporting going north and how we are being ripped off (i know going off subject)!

If you done your stint on the picket line or were not due to be on the picket line - who has a right tell you what you can and cannot do on your own time.

(from non PS worker).


----------



## liaconn (25 Nov 2009)

I have to say, this is the most hypocritical thread I've ever seen on AAM. Over on another forum there is a very lively debate amongst AAMers re shopping up north, how long it takes to drive up there, where the shopping centres are located, what days of the week they go, and so on.


----------



## MANTO (25 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> i have to say, this is the most hypocritical thread i've ever seen on aam. Over on another forum there is a very lively debate amongst aamers re shopping up north, how long it takes to drive up there, where the shopping centres are located, what days of the week they go, and so on.


 
+1


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> I have to say, this is the most hypocritical thread I've ever seen on AAM. Over on another forum there is a very lively debate amongst AAMers re shopping up north, how long it takes to drive up there, where the shopping centres are located, what days of the week they go, and so on.



I agree.


----------



## Caveat (25 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> I have to say, this is the most hypocritical thread I've ever seen on AAM. Over on another forum there is a very lively debate amongst AAMers re shopping up north, how long it takes to drive up there, where the shopping centres are located, what days of the week they go, and so on.


 
Fair enough but the key difference is maybe that those posters are not striking in order to prevent a cash strapped government from making cuts.


----------



## Ham Slicer (25 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> I have to say, this is the most hypocritical thread I've ever seen on AAM. Over on another forum there is a very lively debate amongst AAMers re shopping up north, how long it takes to drive up there, where the shopping centres are located, what days of the week they go, and so on.



Are they the same people of both threads?  If not, I can't see the hypocracy.


----------



## Shawady (25 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> I have to say, this is the most hypocritical thread I've ever seen on AAM. Over on another forum there is a very lively debate amongst AAMers re shopping up north, how long it takes to drive up there, where the shopping centres are located, what days of the week they go, and so on.


 
I'm just surprised there has not been a thread on the fact that Copper Face Jacks was packed on Monday night.
It was on the Joe Duffy show so it must be true........


----------



## Latrade (25 Nov 2009)

Shawady said:


> I'm just surprised there has not been a thread on the fact that Copper Face Jacks was packed on Monday night.
> It was on the Joe Duffy show so it must be true........


 
So they also drove up to Newry still drunk from the night before? Why you good for nothing workshy sottish fops!


----------



## liaconn (25 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> Fair enough but the key difference is maybe that those posters are not striking in order to prevent a cash strapped government from making cuts.


 
But are probably bewailing the loss of jobs in the private sector while busily shopping up North.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Nov 2009)

Shawady said:


> I'm just surprised there has not been a thread on the fact that Copper Face Jacks was packed on Monday night.
> It was on the Joe Duffy show so it must be true........


 
I did hear from several sources that pubs and clubs in Dublin City Centre were jammers on Monday night. They may not have been strikers though


----------



## haminka1 (25 Nov 2009)

i've just spent a couple of days trying to reach our regional registration office. no reply, no call back. 
in all honesty, if their salaries are cut by 50% and their social securities on the level of average private sector employees, I'd be happy. at least they wouldn't have the money to shop in newry or ikea before, during and after their "strikes".


----------



## Caveat (25 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> But are probably bewailing the loss of jobs in the private sector while busily shopping up North.


 
Still not the same thing though.


----------



## liaconn (25 Nov 2009)

Yes, it is. These people are demanding that PS salaries be cut because people in the private sector (some people!) are losing their jobs and taking pay cuts. Then they shop in Newry,jeopardising further jobs in the Private Sector, in order to save themselves money.


----------



## Caveat (25 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> These people are demanding that PS salaries be cut because people in the private sector (some people!) are losing their jobs and taking pay cuts.


 
This is inaccurate.  I can't think of anyone on the site who has said this.

They are 'demanding' that PS salaries be cut because the government cannot afford to pay the salaries - not because people in the private sector are losing their jobs 

You wouldn't be private sector bashing now would you Liaconn?


----------



## liaconn (25 Nov 2009)

You wouldn't be being disingenuous now, would you Caveat.

People have been making the point frequently that 'we' in the Private Sector are taking pay cuts, losing our jobs etc and the Public Service should be prepared to 'share the pain' because we have security of employment and don't know how hard and difficult and frightening it is for people out in the 'real world'. Then they do their shopping up North, putting further Irish jobs at risk. That is the point I'm making and which I'm sure you picked up. (You've never struck me as obtuse!) I'm not saying it's been _*your *_main argument but has been included in many, many posts on here.


----------



## Shawady (25 Nov 2009)

What it is the issue people have?
That some PS workers were shopping on a day they were suppose to be on strike duty? Or that some PS workers shop up the north and thus deprive the government of the VAT?


----------



## liaconn (25 Nov 2009)

No doubt if we were all shopping down here, someone would start up the argument that Public Servants are overpaid because they can afford to shop down South while poor private sector workers are forced over the border because of their low pay.


----------



## liaconn (25 Nov 2009)

truthseeker said:


> I did hear from several sources that pubs and clubs in Dublin City Centre were jammers on Monday night. They may not have been strikers though


 
Of course not. We'd be pubbing and clubbing up North, depriving the Government of revenue .


----------



## Staples (25 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> Fair enough but the key difference is maybe that those posters are not striking in order to prevent a cash strapped government from making cuts.


 
So you're saying that it's alright to shop in the north as long as you're happy enough to take a pay cut.

On the other hand, if you've already lost a day's pay in support of what you believe (with the prospect of more to come), you have a duty to shop locally even if this is more expensive.

And then some people give out about public service attitudes?


----------



## Latrade (25 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> No doubt if we were all shopping down here, someone would start up the argument that Public Servants are overpaid because they can afford to shop down South while poor private sector workers are forced over the border because of their low pay.


 
I think this may be why there was some raised eye brows. It doesn't matter where the shopping happened, it was the fact that it appears quite a few went shopping when it is a strike. 

Now there's nothing to say they can't, but someone must see how that looks? We're told about the huge support for the strike, how people are scared and fear what the government will do, their anger, etc and then some, a few, several, many, whatever, treat it as a day off and head off shopping.

Hospital services were cut back, gardai not issuing fixed penalty notices, benefits not paid etc and we "see" people who supposed to be on strike shopping.

Whether it was one or hundreds, I'm sure you can see why some may have an issue with the concept.


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

People can shop where they like and the people on strike could have hopped on their private jets and over to Paris for all I care.

Its a media story. The one thing about strikes I never really understand is that would it not have been more effective if every staff member spent the normal 8 (or about 4 in the public sector ) hour working day clogging the streets. Why do shifts?


----------



## Caveat (25 Nov 2009)

Staples said:


> So you're saying that it's alright to shop in the north as long as you're happy enough to take a pay cut.


 
Er No.

Look, all I'm saying is (and that's if it did indeed even happen on a large scale) that there was a large irony in this - do you not agree? and it certainly doesn't look good for PS and unions alike.

Personally, I think anyone can and should shop where they like (I do, and most of mainland Europe does).


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> would it not have been more effective if every staff member spent the normal 8 (or about 4 in the public sector ) hour working day clogging the streets.


What effect to you reckon the strikes are trying to achieve?


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> What effect to you reckon the strikes are trying to achieve?


 
I have no idea. I didn't need any public services yesterday so I didn't take any notice. Would have noticed more if 250,000 had actually stayed on the streets rather than do a couple of hours each.


----------



## Staples (25 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> Personally, I think anyone can and should shop where they like (I do, and most of mainland Europe does).


 
Then why can't you leave it at that?  These people sacrificed a day's pay (whther you agree with the rationale or not) and, having served their strike notice, have every right to do what they want with the day.

What would you have them do? Stay at home knitting?


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

Staples said:


> Then why can't you leave it at that? These people sacrificed a day's pay (whther you agree with the rationale or not) and, having served their strike notice, have every right to do what they want with the day.
> 
> What would you have them do? Stay at home knitting?


 
No, but I would expect more than come up with a rota so no-one had to be on the streets for more than a couple of hours. I suppose it is Winter.


----------



## Staples (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> The one thing about strikes I never really understand is that would it not have been more effective if every staff member spent the normal 8 (or about 4 in the public sector ) hour working day clogging the streets. Why do shifts?


 

Clogging the streets. Yes, if only we'd throught of that. 

Doubtless, Biffo would have looked down from his office and said "Forget about the empty schools and hospitals. It's worse than we thought. These people are clogging the streets. JUST GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT!!!"


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

Staples said:


> Clogging the streets. Yes, if only we'd throught of that.
> 
> Doubtless, Biffo would have looked down from his office and said "Forget about the empty schools and hospitals. It's worse than we thought. These people are clogging the streets. JUST GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT!!!"


 
So you are proud that schools were closed and people couldn't get hospital appointments while the people on strike could only be bothered to actually show their anger in short shifts? Basically the public sector took an unpaid days leave. Good luck to them.

By the way, I know some strikers who stayed out for their full shift. I don't agree with them but I admire them


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> I have no idea. I didn't need any public services yesterday so I didn't take any notice.


So why do you make comments about what they need to do to be more effective, when you have no idea what 'effective' means? 



Sunny said:


> Would have noticed more if 250,000 had actually stayed on the streets rather than do a couple of hours each.


Getting noticed by passers-by was not one of the primary objectives of the strike.


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> So why do you make comments about what they need to do to be more effective, when you have no idea what 'effective' means?
> 
> 
> Getting noticed by passers-by was not one of the primary objectives of the strike.


 
Effective is the right word if that is what you are implying.  

So what was the primary objective?


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Effective is the right word if that is what you are implying.


I'm not implying anything. I'm asking why you make comments advising the strikers how to improve their effectiveness, when you don't know what effect they are trying to achieve.

It is like giving someone directions before asking them where they are going.



Sunny said:


> So what was the primary objective?


To send a clear message to Government that the public sector is not going to accept even more cuts.


----------



## Staples (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> So you are proud that schools were closed and people couldn't get hospital appointments while the people on strike could only be bothered to actually show their anger in short shifts? Basically the public sector took an unpaid days leave. Good luck to them.


 
If you're going to discredit your own argument with leaps of logic like this, ther's hardly any point in the rest of us getting involved.


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> I'm not implying anything. I'm asking why you make comments advising the strikers how to improve their effectiveness, when you don't know what effect they are trying to achieve.
> 
> It is like giving someone directions before asking them where they are going.
> 
> ...


 

So thats why the head of the trade union came out and said there had to be adjustments in pay in 2010??? Clear message alright.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> So thats why the head of the trade union came out and said there had to be adjustments in pay in 2010??? Clear message alright.


 
Perhaps he meant adjustments upwards


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

Staples said:


> If you're going to discredit your own argument with leaps of logic like this, ther's hardly any point in the rest of us getting involved.


 
Why, it's true. If you are making a stand, make a stand. Don't just announce you not coming into work, walk up and down for a couple of hours with a placard and then head home to the warmth.


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> So thats why the head of the trade union came out and said there had to be adjustments in pay in 2010??? Clear message alright.


That's not what he said. 



Sunny said:


> Why, it's true. If you are making a stand, make a stand. Don't just announce you not coming into work, walk up and down for a couple of hours with a placard and then head home to the warmth.


I'm always curious about why people who object to something feel obligated to pontificate about how to do it better. You object to people striking and picketing, but you keep rabbiting on about how they can strike or picket better! Perhaps when you've had a few years at running strikes (as opposed to slagging them off), you might actually know something about how to improve them. This is the real hurler on the ditch (at the rugby match).


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> That's not what he said.
> 
> 
> I'm always curious about why people who object to something feel obligated to pontificate about how to do it better. You object to people striking and picketing, but you keep rabbiting on about how they can strike or picket better! Perhaps when you've had a few years at running strikes (as opposed to slagging them off), you might actually know something about how to improve them. This is the real hurler on the ditch (at the rugby match).


 
Yes it is. They admitted there had to be temporary adjustments in the pay bill while working on reform. Hardly the 'we are not taking any more cuts' message that you say was the prime objective.

Perhaps also you could point out where I said I objected to people striking and picketing? I don't agree with it but that's different. People have the right to strike and picket. Just wish they would do it properly if they feel so strongly about what they are striking about. And by the way, you can hardly talk about rabbiting on!


----------



## bond-007 (25 Nov 2009)

I don't see the issue with the public servants going to Newry for the day.
Also If I disagreed with the strike, I would simply stay home and leave the picketing to those that want to strike.


----------



## Caveat (25 Nov 2009)

mathepac said:


> But then I heard (on the RTE wireless news) that if the entire CS / PS stayed at home for a day the saving in wages for the Minister for Hardship would be €60m


 
Is this a roughly accurate figure does anyone know?


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Yes it is. They admitted there had to be temporary adjustments in the pay bill while working on reform. Hardly the 'we are not taking any more cuts' message that you say was the prime objective.


'temporary adjustments in the pay bill' is not the same as 'adjustments in pay'.



Sunny said:


> Perhaps also you could point out where I said I objected to people striking and picketing? I don't agree with it but that's different. People have the right to strike and picket. Just wish they would do it properly if they feel so strongly about what they are striking about.


Is it crazy to think that perhaps you might want to participate in a strike or two, hang around a union for a while, walk up and down on a picket, attend a few union branch meetings BEFORE you appoint yourself the expert to decide 'how to do it properly'?


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> 'temporary adjustments in the pay bill' is not the same as 'adjustments in pay'.
> 
> 
> Is it crazy to think that perhaps you might want to participate in a strike or two, hang around a union for a while, walk up and down on a picket, attend a few union branch meetings BEFORE you appoint yourself the expert to decide 'how to do it properly'?


 
I am everyone else couldn't care less what you call it or how you do it as long as the savings are made. Seems to me though then that the strike yesterday was about semantics if the reports are true.

That is crazy talk!


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> 'temporary adjustments in the pay bill' is not the same as 'adjustments in pay'.


 Good point; there's a huge face-saving exercise between them.


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> I am everyone else couldn't care less what you call it or how you do it as long as the savings are made.


Congratulations on your appointment as spokesperson for 'everyone else'. Best of luck in this challenging role.

Your feedback on approach to picketing will be given all the attention it deserves by the TU movement.


----------



## Markjbloggs (25 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> Congratulations on your appointment as spokesperson for 'everyone else'. Best of luck in this challenging role.
> 
> Your feedback on approach to picketing will be given all the attention it deserves by the TU movement.



I'm everybody else....


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

Markjbloggs said:


> I'm everybody else....


Me too, strangely enough.


----------



## liaconn (25 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> I think this may be why there was some raised eye brows. It doesn't matter where the shopping happened, it was the fact that it appears quite a few went shopping when it is a strike.
> 
> Now there's nothing to say they can't, but someone must see how that looks? We're told about the huge support for the strike, how people are scared and fear what the government will do, their anger, etc and then some, a few, several, many, whatever, treat it as a day off and head off shopping.
> 
> ...


 
No, I don't. 'On Strike' means we were withdrawing our labour and losing a day's pay for withdrawing that labour. How we chose to organise picket duty and what we did when we were not picketing is our business.


----------



## bond-007 (25 Nov 2009)

Indeed it is and fair play to you for taking a stand.


----------



## mathepac (26 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> Is this a roughly accurate figure does anyone know?


That's what was quoted on the lunch-time RTE wireless news. The reporter gave the Dept of Finance as the source with the proviso that to make the savings all PS / CS employees would need to be on strike. The spokesperson was unable to quantify the savings on Tuesday as some services were being delivered by staff working normal rotas.


----------



## Sunny (26 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> Congratulations on your appointment as spokesperson for 'everyone else'. Best of luck in this challenging role.
> 
> Your feedback on approach to picketing will be given all the attention it deserves by the TU movement.


 
Remind me again what the strike was about?


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> Me too, strangely enough.



I don't know about that!


----------



## Staples (26 Nov 2009)

I look forward to the school holiday of 8th December where I hope to witness an equally comprehensive reporting of Newry-bound traffic. 

It will be interesting to see the extent to which last Tuesday's traffic may just have been the consequence of the schools being closed.


----------



## liaconn (26 Nov 2009)

They'll probably still insist that it's public servants 'using up' one of their sick days before the end of the year!!


----------



## bond-007 (26 Nov 2009)

Well paper has never refused ink.


----------



## Latrade (26 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> No, I don't. 'On Strike' means we were withdrawing our labour and losing a day's pay for withdrawing that labour. How we chose to organise picket duty and what we did when we were not picketing is our business.


 
I'm not judging those who did it, I'm asking if you can't understand why some people felt either anger or disbelief at the situation? If you really don't, then that's very blinkered.

Think of those services that directly affected individuals like health care and education, the areas that meant some had to use their own annual leave or possibly even unpaid leave to accomodate. Can you not see how they might feel some discontent if some of those who created the issue didn't protest, but went shopping instead?

Again, no judgement on the people who did so, but it isn't too much of an overstatement to say that they were very short-sighted if they didn't think there would be public reaction to it.


----------



## Complainer (26 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> Can you not see how they might feel some discontent if some of those who created the issue didn't protest, but went shopping instead?


There is no basis for their assumption that anyone who went to Newry didn't do their bit on the picket line before or after.


----------



## liaconn (26 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> I'm not judging those who did it, I'm asking if you can't understand why some people felt either anger or disbelief at the situation? If you really don't, then that's very blinkered.
> 
> Think of those services that directly affected individuals like health care and education, the areas that meant some had to use their own annual leave or possibly even unpaid leave to accomodate. Can you not see how they might feel some discontent if some of those who created the issue didn't protest, but went shopping instead?
> 
> Again, no judgement on the people who did so, but it isn't too much of an overstatement to say that they were very short-sighted if they didn't think there would be public reaction to it.


 

Latrade

The reason we weren't out all day was because of the sheer numbers involved. Even with a roster we got very clear instructions fom our Union that we were not to block the streets or impede passers by in any way. It seems to be a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't. I'm sure if people didn't have shopping in Newry to give out about it would be 'angry mobs taking over the streets and  refusing to let us go about our lawful business' or some other rubbish.

The point of the protest was withdrawing labour. A rostered picket was then organised to highlight the fact that we were on strike. We all lost a day's pay for the strike. We were not allowed take annual leave or flexi leave or anything like that. If Bus Eireann went on strike and staff lost a day's pay I honestly couldn't care less how they spent the day. The impact on me would be that the buses weren't running. I really think this thread is ridiculous. If we have to do another day's strike could you and other AAMers give me a list of 'suitable' activities I can engage in when not on the picket that won't offend any of you.


----------



## Latrade (26 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Latrade
> 
> The reason we weren't out all day was because of the sheer numbers involved. Even with a roster we got very clear instructions fom our Union that we were not to block the streets or impede passers by in any way. It seems to be a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't. I'm sure if people didn't have shopping in Newry to give out about it would be 'angry mobs taking over the streets and refusing to let us go about our lawful business' or some other rubbish.
> 
> The point of the protest was withdrawing labour. A rostered picket was then organised to highlight the fact that we were on strike. We all lost a day's pay for the strike. We were not allowed take annual leave or flexi leave or anything like that. If Bus Eireann went on strike and staff lost a day's pay I honestly couldn't care less how they spent the day. The impact on me would be that the buses weren't running. I really think this thread is ridiculous. If we have to do another day's strike could you and other AAMers give me a list of 'suitable' activities I can engage in when not on the picket that won't offend any of you.


 
I'm not passing any judgement and I agree with you on the damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. All I'm saying is I can understand why people felt how they did about the allegations. 

If I'd had to take a days unpaid leave to look after a child because the school was closed would I feel "better" if the teachers were picketting and protesting? Probably, I wouldn't be jumping for joy, but I could see they were serious about the action. Would I feel happy if, as some reports have confirmed, they went up North to spend the day shopping? I'd probably feel a bit peeved to be honest.

Again, it's not justifying or condemning anyone, all I'm asking is whether you can see how some people felt negatively about the reports?


----------



## truthseeker (26 Nov 2009)

Im not passing any judgement either and I agree with Latrade and I also agree with Liaconn that you are damned if you do and damned if you dont, but - 

The protest was:



Complainer said:


> To send a clear message to Government that the public sector is not going to accept even more cuts.


 
yet the news has reported massive shopping fests in Newry, (plus ancedotal stories of extremely busy turnover in city centre pubs and clubs the night before.)

Doesnt the above seem a little hypocritical? Plus the expenditure across the border means that even more money is being pumped out of our own economy *not that i disagree with people getting best value* but sending the money out of the economy is not going to help the situation and may mean even further cuts.

I do agree that people are entitled to do what they like with their time once they have completed their strike duties, but its difficult to give support when the perception is that the strikers had a nice day off spending money outside of the economy - when the strike was to protest further pay cuts.


----------



## liaconn (26 Nov 2009)

Latrade

Well, given people's determination to feel negatively about the Public Sector no matter what, yes I'm not surprised at their reaction. I think, however, they're being ridiculous. The fact that we were prepared to lose a day's pay (and believe me that wasn't easy for a lot of us) surely shows how serious we were. Nit picking over how the picket was organised is just people looking for something to moan about, IMHO.


----------



## liaconn (26 Nov 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Im not passing any judgement either and I agree with Latrade and I also agree with Liaconn that you are damned if you do and damned if you dont, but -
> 
> The protest was:
> 
> ...


 
But that logic would also apply to Private Sector workers talking about pay cuts, living in terror of losing their jobs etc but then spending all their money in the North. I presume the people who went shopping in Newry on Tuesday (be they Public Servants or people on leave to mind their kids) would have gone at the weekend or at some other time between now and Christmas if they hadn't gone on Tuesday. The reason there was a concentrated burst this week was because people were not in work on one particular day. I imagine this will be balanced off by less people going over subsequent weekends.

Also, one of the reasons so many Public Servants are shopping up North is because they can't afford to buy Santa presents etc in the South now that their pay packets are down with more loss to come. People want us to take pay cuts we can't afford and then want us to shop down here even though it's more expensive, although it's okay for Private Sector workers to go up North. I give up, really.


----------



## galleyslave (26 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Latrade
> 
> The fact that we were prepared to lose a day's pay (and believe me that wasn't easy for a lot of us) surely shows how serious we were.


or looked at another day, ye had enough money to take the hit on a days pay and STILL go shopping up north!


----------



## truthseeker (26 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> But that logic would also apply to Private Sector workers talking about pay cuts, living in terror of losing their jobs etc but then spending all their money in the North. I presume the people who went shopping in Newry on Tuesday (be they Public Servants or people on leave to mind their kids) would have gone at the weekend or at some other time between now and Christmas if they hadn't gone on Tuesday. The reason there was a concentrated burst this week was because people were not in work on one particular day. I imagine this will be balanced off by less people going over subsequent weekends.


 
Private sector wages are not paid by the government though.


----------



## liaconn (26 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> or looked at another day, ye had enough money to take the hit on a days pay and STILL go shopping up north!


 
As I've already said, the _reason_ people went up North was because they needed to save money given they've lost so much pay between levies and industrial action. They weren't buying extra stuff but stuff they needed to get anyway and would have had to pay more for down here.


----------



## galleyslave (26 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> As I've already said, the _reason_ people went up North was because they needed to save money given they've lost so much pay between levies and industrial action.


uh huh... so no booze cruise then eh *G*


----------



## truthseeker (26 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> or looked at another day, ye had enough money to take the hit on a days pay and STILL go shopping up north!


 
Thats the perception Im getting at - but galleyslave articulated it better than me.


----------



## liaconn (26 Nov 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Private sector wages are not paid by the government though.


 
So there should be a bar on Public Servants shopping outside of the Republic??  How about social welfare recipients? Students getting their fees paid by the exchequer???


----------



## liaconn (26 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> uh huh... so no booze cruise then eh *G*


 
Oh sorry, we're not allowed buy in some drink for Christmas?? And source it at the best price??????????? Are we allowed buy some new clothes to wear, or have the odd night out? How about, as a taxpayer, you give us a list of stuff we're allowed to purchase and what are regarded as barred luxuries?

This thread is getting increasingly silly.


----------



## Sunny (26 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Latrade
> 
> The fact that we were prepared to lose a day's pay (and believe me that wasn't easy for a lot of us) surely shows how serious we were. .


 
What were you serious about? That you are not taking anymore cuts? And yet your unions come out that evening and admit that cuts/adjustments will have to be made in 2010. So you simply striked about the form of the cuts. Was it worth losing a days pay for that?


----------



## galleyslave (26 Nov 2009)

its all in the 'optics' truthseeker. We're told how tough things are and on the very day of the strike I dare say the dust cloud on the road to newry was visible from cork and kerry. Regardless of whether it was wives, spouses or off duty workers, or even strikers, it didn't look good.


----------



## galleyslave (26 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Oh sorry, we're not allowed buy in some drink for Christmas?? And source it at the best price???????????  Are we allowed buy some new clothes to wear, or have the odd night out?


never said that.


----------



## liaconn (26 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> What were you serious about? That you are not taking anymore cuts? And yet your unions come out that evening and admit that cuts/adjustments will have to be made in 2010. So you simply striked about the form of the cuts. Was it worth losing a days pay for that?


 
We were striking about cuts being implemented fairly. Yes, that was worth losing a day's pay for.


----------



## Sunny (26 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> We were striking about cuts being implemented fairly. Yes, that was worth losing a day's pay for.


 
How did a strike achieve that? All that can and has to be done during negotiation.


----------



## liaconn (26 Nov 2009)

Actually, I'm going to come clean. We weren't really 'on strike'. We can all easily afford to lose a day's pay and just fancied a wet Tuesday off work. We called it a 'strike' even though strikes achieve nothing and are just a silly invention of the Public Service. We drew lots and a few eejits were picked to walk up and down with placards while the rest of us had a nice long lie in. Then, although we're exceptionally well paid, we thought it would be a great idea to queue for hours in traffic jams up North with kids fighting in the back seat and asking 'are we nearly there', not because we needed to save money (of course not) but because we just thought it would be a bit of gas. Then, when we finally made it to Newry and drove around for an hour with the windscreen wipers going like mad to try and find parking, we hit the shops. We completely bypassed the displays of nappies and cereals and pasta sauces which are quarter the price of at home, because we don't need to make savings on things like that. No, we just headed straight for the booze section and the boxes of chocolates and the clothes and furniture. Then we  drove home in the rain, with the kids perched on top of all the crates of whiskey and boxes of Ikea furniture in order to catch the 6 oc news because we wanted to catch ourselves confirming to RTE reporters that yes indeed, we were all public servants shirking our picket duty and stocking up on luxurious inessentials in order to deprive the Irish exchequer of monies we could well afford to give them.
Our next cunning plan, (and this is in confidence AAMers) is a week long extravaganza of strikes (we wouldn't even notice a week's loss of pay). We're going to organise it for the week before Christmas so we can run it into the Christmas break and have loads of time off. We'll agree to come back to work for a half day, but that's only so we can have our Christmas party (we have to pay every penny for that ourselves but it hardly makes a dent in our weekly budget). 
So anyway, fair play to you, you had our measure all along. There's no fooling you lot!


----------



## galleyslave (26 Nov 2009)

thought so liaconn. just emailed your post to Brian Lenihan, ICTU and Joe Duffy. Expect a reduction in pay from next week and phone call from RTE


----------



## Sunny (26 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Actually, I'm going to come clean. We weren't really 'on strike'. We can all easily afford to lose a day's pay and just fancied a wet Tuesday off work. We called it a 'strike' even though strikes achieve nothing and are just a silly invention of the Public Service. We drew lots and a few eejits were picked to walk up and down with placards while the rest of us had a nice long lie in. Then, although we're exceptionally well paid, we thought it would be a great idea to queue for hours in traffic jams up North with kids fighting in the back seat and asking 'are we nearly there', not because we needed to save money (of course not) but because we just thought it would be a bit of gas. Then, when we finally made it to Newry and drove around for an hour with the windscreen wipers going like mad to try and find parking, we hit the shops. We completely bypassed the displays of nappies and cereals and pasta sauces which are quarter the price of at home, because we don't need to make savings on things like that. No, we just headed straight for the booze section and the boxes of chocolates and the clothes and furniture. Then we drove home in the rain, with the kids perched on top of all the crates of whiskey and boxes of Ikea furniture in order to catch the 6 oc news because we wanted to catch ourselves confirming to RTE reporters that yes indeed, we were all public servants shirking our picket duty and stocking up on luxurious inessentials in order to deprive the Irish exchequer of monies we could well afford to give them.
> Our next cunning plan, (and this is in confidence AAMers) is a week long extravaganza of strikes (we wouldn't even notice a week's loss of pay). We're going to organise it for the week before Christmas so we can run it into the Christmas break and have loads of time off. We'll agree to come back to work for a half day, but that's only so we can have our Christmas party (we have to pay every penny for that ourselves but it hardly makes a dent in our weekly budget).
> So anyway, fair play to you, you had our measure all along. There's no fooling you lot!


 
Well written but don't get the point of your rant. Complainer was saying that the point of the strike was that the public sector wouldn't take anymore cuts. You seem to be suggesting that you would accept cuts but they have to be done fairly. I am simply trying to understand why you were striking. Its a simple question that neither you nor complainer has answered. Was it a simple protest strike against the Government or were you trying to achieve something?


----------



## galleyslave (26 Nov 2009)

I've a cunning plan. Lets all us private sector workers go on strike for the day and head up to newry. Then lets all have a giggle as the public sector tries to buy their petrol,fags and takeaways and what not with all the shops closed *g*


----------



## liaconn (26 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Well written but don't get the point of your rant. Complainer was saying that the point of the strike was that the public sector wouldn't take anymore cuts. You seem to be suggesting that you would accept cuts but they have to be done fairly. I am simply trying to understand why you were striking. Its a simple question that neither you nor complainer has answered. Was it a simple protest strike against the Government or were you trying to achieve something?


 
It was to make it clear to the Government that the Public Service wasn't a handy piggy bank for them to come to every time they need money. Most of us looked on it as a strategic action which would hopefully make them think carefully about implementing cuts fairly not just in this, but in the next budget.


----------



## Sunny (26 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> It was to make it clear to the Government that the Public Service wasn't a handy piggy bank for them to come to every time they need money. Most of us looked on it as a strategic action which would hopefully make them think carefully about implementing cuts fairly not just in this, but in the next budget.


 
Fair enough. Thats all I wanted to know. Enjoy Newry!! (Joke.)


----------



## Shawady (26 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Complainer was saying that the point of the strike was that the public sector wouldn't take anymore cuts. You seem to be suggesting that you would accept cuts but they have to be done fairly. I am simply trying to understand why you were striking.


 
I would say most of my colleagues accept their are going to be more cuts but there has definitely been a change in their attitude since the Pension levy ballot. Most of the people in my section either voted against strike action or did not vote at all earlier in the year as it was felt it was reasonable for the government to make some savings in the pay bill and civil servants should not be immune. There is now a perception that the government got the money easy that time so have come back for more very quickly when there may be other options this time. For example, why cut PS pay again when 40% of people don't pay any tax at all?
When the pension levy was introduced I never thought that would be the only cut we would get over the course of the 5 year plan, but again there is a perception that if people take a cut this year without protest, it will be the same this time next year.
I don't know if the strike will make any difference myself, but I can understand why people are protesting.


----------



## Latrade (26 Nov 2009)

Shawady said:


> ....but again there is a perception that if people take a cut this year without protest, it will be the same this time next year.
> I don't know if the strike will make any difference myself, but I can understand why people are protesting.


 
That was how I took the majority of views. Yes there will be cuts, but to make the point that you won't be an easy target and to force their hand into a more sustainable means of achieving cuts rather than just dipping into pay everytime they get the economy wrong.

I couldn't agree more with this stance, I'd feel the same.

I don't think that was the message the union leaders were giving in the build up and so this got lost on the majority of people. Look at the ICTU plans and other statements, it was all about not touching pay or numbers and taxing the "well off". It may have been a bluff and all huff and puff, but that's what was being put into the mainstream media.


----------



## Sunny (26 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> That was how I took the majority of views. Yes there will be cuts, but to make the point that you won't be an easy target and to force their hand into a more sustainable means of achieving cuts rather than just dipping into pay everytime they get the economy wrong.
> 
> I couldn't agree more with this stance, I'd feel the same.
> 
> I don't think that was the message the union leaders were giving in the build up and so this got lost on the majority of people. Look at the ICTU plans and other statements, it was all about not touching pay or numbers and taxing the "well off". It may have been a bluff and all huff and puff, but that's what was being put into the mainstream media.


 
I agree.


----------



## liaconn (26 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> That was how I took the majority of views. Yes there will be cuts, but to make the point that you won't be an easy target and to force their hand into a more sustainable means of achieving cuts rather than just dipping into pay everytime they get the economy wrong.
> 
> I couldn't agree more with this stance, I'd feel the same.
> 
> I don't think that was the message the union leaders were giving in the build up and so this got lost on the majority of people. Look at the ICTU plans and other statements, it was all about not touching pay or numbers and taxing the "well off". It may have been a bluff and all huff and puff, but that's what was being put into the mainstream media.


 
I agree. The PR wasn't the best. Or maybe it was the old thing of 'we'll ask for €10 and maybe we'll get €5.' But nobody I know went on strike in the belief that this would mean no cuts. It was about ensuring we wouldn't be seen as a passive, easy touch in every budget between now and God knows when.


----------



## Shawady (26 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> I agree. The PR wasn't the best. Or maybe it was the old thing of 'we'll ask for €10 and maybe we'll get €5.' But nobody I know went on strike in the belief that this would mean no cuts. It was about ensuring we wouldn't be seen as a passive, easy touch in every budget between now and God knows when.


 `
I aggree. I think the union leaders have reverted back to their old style 'we won't give an inch' and then secretly know they are only minimising the damage. I aksed one of my colleagues who is involved in the union have the government given any indication of how the cuts are going to be made i.e. core pay, allowances etc , and he said they have repeatedly asked for a breakdown and they have been given nothing. It sounds like both sides have gone back to a 'them and us' approach. So much for social partnership. 
The frustating part is, if the government had put together some sort for plan at the start for cuts in pay and numbers over 3-5 years, once there was nothing too severe a majority of PS workers may have signed up for it. I'm sure this would have given a positive signal to the ECB and possibly had a good reaction for our credit rating.


----------



## Latrade (26 Nov 2009)

Shawady said:


> The frustating part is, if the government had put together some sort for plan at the start for cuts in pay and numbers over 3-5 years, once there was nothing too severe a majority of PS workers may have signed up for it. I'm sure this would have given a positive signal to the ECB and possibly had a good reaction for our credit rating.


 
I may be wrong, but doesn't such a plan have to either be announced as part of the budget or at least through the Dail process first? I'm not entirely sure the government was in a position to give any plan so far in advance of the budget.


----------



## Caveat (26 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> I couldn't agree more with this stance, I'd feel the same.


 


Sunny said:


> I agree.


 


liaconn said:


> I agree.


 


Shawady said:


> `
> I aggree.


 


Brendan quick - do something, there seems to be a bizarre glitch in the site.


----------



## Shawady (26 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> I may be wrong, but doesn't such a plan have to either be announced as part of the budget or at least through the Dail process first? I'm not entirely sure the government was in a position to give any plan so far in advance of the budget.


 
Not sure of the procedure but they have come up with pay agreements in the past phased in over two years. They could have come up with something similar for pay cuts. For example 12%, broken down to a 4% cut 3 years in a row. Similarly, they could put together a 5 year plan to reduce number and set a target of 10-15% or something like that.
I think somthing structured like that may work.


----------

