# Politicians: "Supermarkets should not charge customers for their shopping for 6 months"



## Brendan Burgess (8 Jul 2020)

Fair play to the politicians for standing up to the supermarkets.

Pearse Doherty today called on the supermarkets not to charge any of their customers for their shopping for six months. In particular, he called on the government to direct the state owned supermarkets not to charge customers. Charging them for their groceries was like imposing a Covid penalty on them.

David Hall of the Irish Supermarket Customers Organisation agreed saying that it was ridiculous that supermarkets would charge customers during this time.

The Taoiseach Micheal Martin said he was very concerned to hear that the supermarkets were charging customers and he had asked the responsible minister to meet with the owners of the supermarkets to let them know of the government's dissatisfaction with it.

The Labour Party has introduced a motion in the Dáil to demand that the government take action on the matter.  The European Commission has made it clear that there is no obligation on supermarkets to charge their customers. It was a decision for each individual supermarket whether to charge customers for their purchases or not.

Brendan


----------



## Wm Kee (8 Jul 2020)

Is it April 1st again today?


----------



## RedOnion (8 Jul 2020)

I'm not entirely sure if they're arguing that your groceries should be completely free, or if the supermarket just shouldn't make a profit on them? I think the specific term used by one Deputy was that the supermarkets shouldn't 'fleece' customers.
It'll be interesting to see if this features on LiveLine tomorrow. The outrage!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Jul 2020)

Hi Red

I found their language confusing.

One said "profiteering" which suggested that they should be just selling stuff at cost price. 

However, others said that they should not charge at all so that would be giving away the stuff.

I personally have long campaigned against supermarkets charging the highest prices in Europe, but I don't think that they should give away stuff for free. 

Brendan


----------



## RedOnion (9 Jul 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I found their language confusing


I'm getting confused myself... 

Could it be just politicians being populist, and they don't really know what they are saying? 

I wonder if they've thought about the people who went ahead and paid for their groceries every week, because they didn't realise that they could get them for free if they didn't?


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Jul 2020)

I was starting to get my hopes up... then I woke up.

Is "supermarkets" code for something else?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Jul 2020)

Wm Kee said:


> Is it April 1st again today?



Hi  Wm

I don't think so. When it was proposed in the Dáil yesterday to prohibit supermarkets from charging customers,  not one TD spoke against the proposal.

And on the RTE news report last night, the only person to explain what they were doing was Brian Hayes, the spokesman for the Irish Supermarkets Federation.


----------



## IsleOfMan (9 Jul 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Is "supermarkets" code for something else?



Substitute the word Banks/Pubs/cigarette makers...


----------



## DublinHead54 (9 Jul 2020)

On the news they mentioned "this is costing some customers thousands of euros in extra interest".

Surely that is only for a very small number?


----------



## Purple (9 Jul 2020)

What I find really annoying is that supermarkets are seeking to make a profit on the backs of working people who find themselves in a position where they need to eat. During boom times some people eat far too much and get fat and unhealthy. This is clearly the fault of the supermarkets as they should never have sold them all that food in the first place. The State is also at fault for not regulating supermarkets properly as the only other alternative is for peopel to take personal responsibility for their own actions. That, or course, is a ridiculous notion.


----------



## Allpartied (9 Jul 2020)

Hasn't the government given everyone who couldn't work,  their entire grocery bill, plus a whole lot more, in Covid payments.
They are, effectively, subsidising the grocery industry, as well as a host of other necessary services.
So, while the supermarkets are still charging for their goods, much of the payment is coming from the state.

Maybe just give all mortgage payers a subsidy for three months to pay the interest on their mortgages.

Would that keep Brian Hayes happy?


----------



## Purple (9 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Hasn't the government given everyone who couldn't work,  their entire grocery bill, plus a whole lot more, in Covid payments.
> They are, effectively, subsidising the grocery industry, as well as a host of other necessary services.
> So, while the supermarkets are still charging for their goods, much of the payment is coming from the state.
> 
> ...


I think the point is that Banks, as opposed to any other business, are expected to provide their goods or services for free. If it's okay to ask banks to provide stuff for free then why not supermarkets, garages who service cars, tyre shops, petrol stations and all those other necessary services?


----------



## Sophrosyne (9 Jul 2020)

The Tánaiste explained today that there was an additional cost to the supermarkets in providing payment breaks, which he felt shouldn’t be born by taxpayers or other supermarket shoppers but by those receiving payment breaks.

However, supermarkets should only recover actual costs. They will be watched closely to ensure there are no charges beyond this.


----------



## michaelm (9 Jul 2020)

It is reasonable to ask the banks to allow Covid payment breaks at cost.  They won't loose out, they'll get all the interest they would have had Covid not arrived.  Also, the bank are being indirectly supported through the Covid welfare payment and the wages subsidy scheme.


----------



## Allpartied (9 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> I think the point is that Banks, as opposed to any other business, are expected to provide their goods or services for free. If it's okay to ask banks to provide stuff for free then why not supermarkets, garages who service cars, tyre shops, petrol stations and all those other necessary services?



This is an exceptional situation.  People have been ordered to stop working and have been denied their right to earn a wage, by decree. 
If they tried to work they would be arrested and, likely, imprisoned. 
The mortgage is not like any other product, unless you purchase 30 years worth of groceries, and pay back the bill every month. The interest accrued over this time period will be on the entire sum, instead of a diminishing sum and, as such, represents an increase in costs for people who were forcibly removed from the labour market. 
 It will still be paid, it's just that the banks will be asked to forgo profiteering from this enforced period of unemployment.

I don't think that is unreasonable.


----------



## Purple (9 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> This is an exceptional situation.  People have been ordered to stop working and have been denied their right to earn a wage, by decree.


 Every order which is back by a law is a decree. 



Allpartied said:


> If they tried to work they would be arrested and, likely, imprisoned.


 Imprisoned? will ye go way out'a that.



Allpartied said:


> The mortgage is not like any other product, unless you purchase 30 years worth of groceries, and pay back the bill every month. The interest accrued over this time period will be on the entire sum, instead of a diminishing sum and, as such, represents an increase in costs for people who were forcibly removed from the labour market.


 That's incorrect; the interest only accrues over the full term of the mortgage if the borrower chooses not to pay it back sooner. For most people the interest will actually amount to no more than a few hundred euro. The mortgage holder can just pay a little extra over the next few months or years and the extra cost will be gone. 



Allpartied said:


> It will still be paid, it's just that the banks will be asked to forgo profiteering from this enforced period of unemployment.
> 
> I don't think that is unreasonable.


 The good news is that the banks will not be increasing the interest or charges they impose on any mortgage "holiday" and will not be breaking any laws so they will not be profiteering. 
Are the supermarkets profiteering by continuing to charge what they have always charged to people who are buying food now, those same people who have been forced out of work under pain of execution or transportation to Van Demon Land or rendition to Gitmo or whatever fanciful idea you have of what the State will do to people they find working?


----------



## Allpartied (9 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> Every order which is back by a law is a decree.
> 
> Imprisoned? will ye go way out'a that.
> 
> ...



6 months imprisonment was the punishment for breaking the emergency laws.
If  a hairdresser had continued to work through the lockdown, they would have been liable to imprisonment.









						Full list of new garda lockdown powers including fines and 6 months in prison
					

Gardai have the power to issue fines and potentially detain people who are refusing to self-isolate




					www.irishmirror.ie
				




The amount might be small, if spread over thirty years, but for many it will cost them several thousand euros.  

Through no fault of their own, they are being penalised.  Banks could easily offer a no-cost interest period, based on their own borrowing costs, ( surely below 1%) to all their customers as a sign of good will ( " we're all in it together").  It might make public opinion a little more favorable when they come begging for the next bailout.


----------



## Purple (9 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> 6 months imprisonment was the punishment for breaking the emergency laws.
> If  a hairdresser had continued to work through the lockdown, they would have been liable to imprisonment.
> 
> 
> ...


And how likely was it that anyone would have gone to prison, do you think?



Allpartied said:


> The amount might be small, if spread over thirty years, but for many it will cost them several thousand euros.


No, the amount would be big if it was spread over 30 years as the interest would accrue during that whole period. The amount would be small if they paid it back over a few months of years.



Allpartied said:


> Through no fault of their own, they are being penalised.  Banks could easily offer a no-cost interest period, based on their own borrowing costs, ( surely below 1%) to all their customers as a sign of good will ( " we're all in it together").


 So you think the banks should be penalised, through no fault of their own? Or do you think there's no cost associated with them not charging interest for 3-6 months?  



Allpartied said:


> It might make public opinion a little more favorable when they come begging for the next bailout.


 The banks weren't bailed out; bond holders and depositors were bailed out. We borrowed €40 billion to put the money back into everyone's savings accounts. I didn't have any savings, if you did then say "thank you" to every child in the country as they bailed you out.


----------



## Allpartied (9 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> The banks weren't bailed out; bond holders and depositors were bailed out. We borrowed €40 billion to put the money back into everyone's savings accounts. I didn't have any savings, if you did then say "thank you" to every child in the country as they bailed you out.



The banks were bailed out.  The directors, the senior managers, the big shots with millionaire pensions, they got their money.  The business they ran was insolvent, but they still got paid, every penny, including 100's of senior managers on 100k pa pensions. 

I didn't agree with the blanket bailout for depositors and think that those with savings above the Deposit guarantee should have taken a hair cut. 
It seems the Irish govt is happy to use taxpayers money to bailout the richest members of society, but baulks at providing those who are forcibly unemployed with even minimum assistance.


----------



## Purple (10 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> The banks were bailed out.  The directors, the senior managers, the big shots with millionaire pensions, they got their money.  The business they ran was insolvent, but they still got paid, every penny, including 100's of senior managers on 100k pa pensions.


_"The directors, the senior managers, the big shots with millionaire pensions, they got their money.  The business they ran was insolvent"; _You could be talking about State employees in those positions too (every Garda, every senior civil servant and lots of other State employees have "millionaire pensions"). Do you think that every well paid bank employee and every well paid state employee should have lost their job and their pension? Do you think there should be some sort of collective responsibility?
The vast majority of the money was to used to bail out depositors and bond holders (private pension funds). Sorry if that doesn't fit with your narrative.



Allpartied said:


> I didn't agree with the blanket bailout for depositors and think that those with savings above the Deposit guarantee should have taken a hair cut.
> It seems the Irish govt is happy to use taxpayers money to bailout the richest members of society, but baulks at providing those who are forcibly unemployed with even minimum assistance.


 The bulk of the money used to put money back into private citizens bank accounts went to people with balances below the deposit guarantee ceiling. The whole thing accounted for €60 billion of the €200 billion we borrowed. The rest was to pay wages and welfare and pensions. If you don't want to see the richest members of society being funded by borrowed money then you should be looking for cuts to pensions since the retired are the richest cohort in the country. Good luck with that though!

Back on topic; most people with mortgages are middle to higher income households. If they are in that cohort and they have kids then they are already net recipients from the State since the top 5% pay most of the tax in this country, making a nonsense of the claim by populist morons that somehow the country is run to suit "the rich". Do you really think that people on welfare and their children should be subsidising the acquisition of capital assets by middle income earners? That's what you are suggesting as, obviously, banks don't function in a vacuum and we own the biggest one.


----------



## Leo (10 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> The banks were bailed out. The directors, the senior managers, the big shots with millionaire pensions, they got their money.



Their millionaire pensions and retirement pots which were largely made up of bank shares?


----------



## Purple (10 Jul 2020)

Leo said:


> Their millionaire pensions and retirement pots which were largely made up of bank shares?


Unlike the millionaire pensions of State employees which are made up of current expenditure and are never touched.


----------



## Leo (10 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> Unlike the millionaire pensions of State employees which are made up of current expenditure and are never touched.



Good point!!


----------



## Allpartied (10 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> Unlike the millionaire pensions of State employees which are made up of current expenditure and are never touched.



Pensions of publc servants were reduced in 2009 by a significant percentage.  Reducing someone's pension, in real terms, is a very drastic step.  Retirees have little scope to increase their income and are dependent on the fixed income they receive via the pension. 

If you want to put a 40k limit on PS pensions you won't get much resistance from public sector employees.  The vast majority ( around 98%) get pensions well below the 40k pa mark and the average is well below that figure. 

The fact is that the Banks are not state owned and they are subject to the wonders of the free market.  They ran their businesses into the ground and yet they face no consequences.  So let's just nationalise them and run them as servants of our economy, rather than terrifying masters.  Then the big shots can get the same millionaire benefits as civil servants. 

In fact, going back to the original thread, yes  the supermarkets should have provided food at cost price. 
This was a national emergency, on a par with a war, where the consequences were unknown, but could have been catastrophic. 
All essential services should have been, temporarily, nationalized and food, energy, housing, provided at cost price, with no profiteering, until the situation stabilized. 
Hopefully, when the bill comes to be paid, it will be those companies that saw massive increases in profits, who get the biggest tab.


----------



## Purple (10 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Pensions of publc servants were reduced in 2009 by a significant percentage.  Reducing someone's pension, in real terms, is a very drastic step.  Retirees have little scope to increase their income and are dependent on the fixed income they receive via the pension.


 Retirees are the richest demographic, with the highest net assets and the highest disposable and are the demographic least at risk of living in poverty (children are much more likely to live in poverty). Pensions of retired Public Servants were not reduced at all in 2009. Young public servants were screwed by their Unions to protect retired and older public servants.



Allpartied said:


> If you want to put a 40k limit on PS pensions you won't get much resistance from public sector employees.  The vast majority ( around 98%) get pensions well below the 40k pa mark and the average is well below that figure.


 You do know that is a pension fund worth over a million, right?



Allpartied said:


> The fact is that the Banks are not state owned and they are subject to the wonders of the free market.  They ran their businesses into the ground and yet they face no consequences.  So let's just nationalise them and run them as servants of our economy, rather than terrifying masters.  Then the big shots can get the same millionaire benefits as civil servants.


 AIB is State owned, just not State run. The State has an appalling record for running businesses. The last thing the citizens of this country need is State run businesses. Look at the things the State does run like Healthcare. Do you really want more of that Unionised waste and incompetence?



Allpartied said:


> In fact, going back to the original thread, yes  the supermarkets should have provided food at cost price.
> This was a national emergency, on a par with a war, where the consequences were unknown, but could have been catastrophic.
> All essential services should have been, temporarily, nationalized and food, energy, housing, provided at cost price, with no profiteering, until the situation stabilized.
> Hopefully, when the bill comes to be paid, it will be those companies that saw massive increases in profits, who get the biggest tab.


Ah sweet Jasus, a war?!
Take a look at Libya and Syria. They are wars. The Congolese Civil war in the 90's (the biggest war since the second world war); that was a war.
Calling 1600 people dying over a 3 month period, many of whom were going to die during that time anyway, is sad but it's not a war.
A war is when you are shot or blown up or lose everything you have and end up in a refugee camp and watch your children die from Cholera. Being told you have to queue for the shops and not go to the pub, and stay home and watch Netflix... no, that's not a war.

A war... that's just the sort of ill informed hyperbole that would see the economy collapse and billions more in debt flosted onto our children. The last thing we need is the Venezuelan solution of borrowing and nationalising. .


----------



## Allpartied (13 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> Retirees are the richest demographic, with the highest net assets and the highest disposable and are the demographic least at risk of living in poverty (children are much more likely to live in poverty). Pensions of retired Public Servants were not reduced at all in 2009. Young public servants were screwed by their Unions to protect retired and older public servants.
> 
> You do know that is a pension fund worth over a million, right?
> 
> ...



I won't bother going down rabbit hole of Public Sector pensions, or Venezueala or Stalin's gulags, or whatever other nonsense people come up with when modest or necessary state intervention is required to stabilise an economy during an emergency, but just one thing. 
You may have passed the lockdown in quiet contemplation, baking sour dough, or reading Proust, but there is a war going on. 
1800 people have died, thousands more have been hospitalised, fighting for their lives in Intensive Care units around the country. If the lockdown had not come, then many more would have died.  The ICU's were full in late March/eary April.  If the numbers had continued to roll into the hospitals, then the crisis would have been completely overwhelming. 
Maybe, we get lucky this time and the virus becomes less virulent, or less infectious, maybe not, maybe it gets worse. But there is going to be a pandemic, at some point in the future, which could overwhelm our economy, society and health services.  We need to be ready, and relying on the free market is not going to cut it.


----------



## Protocol (13 Jul 2020)

Purple,

pensions in payment were reduced, it's known as the PSPR, not well known.





__





						Public Service Pension Reduction (PSPR)
					






					www.gov.ie
				




Pension conts were also increased, known as the PRD.


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2020)

Protocol said:


> Purple,
> 
> pensions in payment were reduced, it's known as the PSPR, not well known.
> 
> ...


Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> I won't bother going down rabbit hole of Public Sector pensions, or Venezueala or Stalin's gulags, or whatever other nonsense people come up with when modest or necessary state intervention is required to stabilise an economy during an emergency, but just one thing.
> You may have passed the lockdown in quiet contemplation, baking sour dough, or reading Proust, but there is a war going on.
> 1800 people have died, thousands more have been hospitalised, fighting for their lives in Intensive Care units around the country. If the lockdown had not come, then many more would have died.  The ICU's were full in late March/eary April.  If the numbers had continued to roll into the hospitals, then the crisis would have been completely overwhelming.
> Maybe, we get lucky this time and the virus becomes less virulent, or less infectious, maybe not, maybe it gets worse. But there is going to be a pandemic, at some point in the future, which could overwhelm our economy, society and health services.  We need to be ready, and relying on the free market is not going to cut it.


Describing things as wars (war of drugs, war on poverty etc) is just silly. This is a public health emergency. It is not a war. About 31,000 people die in this country every year. That means since mid March about 10,300 people would have died in this country anyway. The total number is up by a little over 10%.
There may well be another pandemic, maybe even within the next few decades. If we want to reduce the likelihood of that happening then we have to address the causes of zoonotic transmission of diseases from animals to humans and the number one cause of that is habitat destruction.
The ICU numbers don't mean a whole lot; ICU's are usually quite ull and it's relatively easy to set up more of them. Though getting the correctly trained staff can be more of an issue but more money solves all staff relates problems in healthcare.

Who is suggesting that we rely on the free market to handle public health issues? We are one of the most socialist countries in the world so what makes you think there would be support for that?


----------



## Allpartied (13 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> Describing things as wars (war of drugs, war on poverty etc) is just silly. This is a public health emergency. It is not a war. About 31,000 people die in this country every year. That means since mid March about 10,300 people would have died in this country anyway. The total number is up by a little over 10%.
> There may well be another pandemic, maybe even within the next few decades. If we want to reduce the likelihood of that happening then we have to address the causes of zoonotic transmission of diseases from animals to humans and the number one cause of that is habitat destruction.
> The ICU numbers don't mean a whole lot; ICU's are usually quite ull and it's relatively easy to set up more of them. Though getting the correctly trained staff can be more of an issue but more money solves all staff relates problems in healthcare.
> 
> Who is suggesting that we rely on the free market to handle public health issues? We are one of the most socialist countries in the world so what makes you think there would be support for that?




Many hospital nurses were being retrained, or refreshed in the management of ventilated patients, or emergency oxygen delivery. 
Theatre nurses, or Endoscopy nurses, were first up, and many others volunteered to take on the role, should they be needed. 
They didn't ask for any extra money.


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Many hospital nurses were being retrained, or refreshed in the management of ventilated patients, or emergency oxygen delivery.
> Theatre nurses, or Endoscopy nurses, were first up, and many others volunteered to take on the role, should they be needed.
> They didn't ask for any extra money.


Many teachers were willing to work over the summer but their Union put a stop to that. Wait until the dust settles and as sure as god made little apples their Unions will all be looking for a pay rise for the Heroes.
The care assistants, the food services people, the cleaners and porters and all the other people working in hospitals and care homes are facing the same risks as nurses and doctors. 

Where I work people learn new skills all the time without looking for pay increases. It's just part of the job.


----------



## losttheplot (13 Jul 2020)

Where I work you learn new skills so you're still relevant and employable and less likely to be redundant.


----------



## Allpartied (13 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> Many teachers were willing to work over the summer but their Union put a stop to that. Wait until the dust settles and as sure as god made little apples their Unions will all be looking for a pay rise for the Heroes.
> The care assistants, the food services people, the cleaners and porters and all the other people working in hospitals and care homes are facing the same risks as nurses and doctors.
> 
> Where I work people learn new skills all the time without looking for pay increases. It's just part of the job.



Maybe you should join a union.


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Maybe you should join a union.


Why? I am interested in fairness and the low paid not being screwed over to protect the high paid so I could never join a Union.


----------



## Allpartied (13 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> Why? I am interested in fairness and the low paid not being screwed over to protect the high paid so I could never join a Union.



You don't promote fairness and improve low pay, by dragging down the reasonably well paid.  You do it, by increasing the wealth of the low paid, and reducing the mountain of wealth at the top. 
Unions, closed shops, collective bargaining, that's how you do it. 
Welcome to the struggle, comrade.


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> You don't promote fairness and improve low pay, by dragging down the reasonably well paid.  You do it, by increasing the wealth of the low paid, and reducing the mountain of wealth at the top.
> Unions, closed shops, collective bargaining, that's how you do it.
> Welcome to the struggle, comrade.


No, that's how you close businesses and ruin people's futures. If you want people to be better paid then you train them so that they are more skilled and their labour is worth more. The movement of capital to the developing world over the last 30 years has lifted 4 billion people out of abject poverty. My concern for poor people stretched beyond my national border and people who look like me.
Of course multinational corporations and their owners should pay way more tax but in Ireland "the rich", people who earn very high wages, are already paying massive amounts of tax and carrying the  rest of us.
Unions protect the haves from the have-nots and encourage waste and low standards. They encourage protectionism and trade barriers which cause untold suffering around the world. At home they bully and coerce people into submission who have the temerity to speak their own mind.
The Unions in the health sector are the reason people die on trolleys etc. Their leaders have blood on their hands.
They are despicable contemptible self serving parasites, a cancer on Irish society so no, I wouldn't join a Union.


----------



## peemac (15 Jul 2020)

Simple example

Look at where the biggest problems are in Ireland. Healthcare and teaching. 

Look where unions are strongest amongst the workforce. Healthcare and teaching. 


And if you are a member of a union, have a look at the complete pay, pension and expenses packages of the senior members in charge. (paid by your dues) Many a senior banker would be jealous.


----------



## Cricketer (15 Jul 2020)

Well @peemac you can't be accused of detailed and considered analysis. Where did you get the idea that the biggest problems in Ireland are in teaching? Last time I checked, the Irish education system was one of the best-performing internationally. As the saying goes, "some people would love to have your problems".


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2020)

Cricketer said:


> Well @peemac you can't be accused of detailed and considered analysis. Where did you get the idea that the biggest problems in Ireland are in teaching? Last time I checked, the Irish education system was one of the best-performing internationally.


When was the last time you checked?

We rank highly in reading literacy, fourth in the OECD, but are very much mid table in science and mathematics in OECD (17th of 72) and EU rankings  (11th of 28).
We are average across the board in outcomes but have better participation rates among lower socioeconomic groups.
We have well paid teachers; average salary for a teacher with 15 years experience is around €61,000 plus their pension so a package worth around €85,000 (more than 20% above the OECD average, PPP adjusted) with long school days but long holidays and generally okay outcomes but nothing to celebrate about. Compared to the Northern European countries we like to think we are like we rank quite badly. The notion that we have a world class education system doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.

This is a good read on the subject.

Back on topic; Why should any business provide their services for nothing? Mortgage holders are generally better off than average, although younger mortgage holders probably have less disposable income and a lower standard of living than many people in social housing, so why should a business fund the social responsibility  to subsidise their mortgage payments? This is like the idea that private landlords should fund the States responsibility to house people.


----------



## peemac (15 Jul 2020)

Cricketer said:


> Well @peemac you can't be accused of detailed and considered analysis. Where did you get the idea that the biggest problems in Ireland are in teaching? Last time I checked, the Irish education system was one of the best-performing internationally. As the saying goes, "some people would love to have your problems".


In terms on industrial relations. Seems every year ASTI have a vote for a strike for some reason or other and nearly always just as exams are commencing

Quality of teaching, just like the quality of healthcare is excellent. Pity the unions cause so much strife.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2020)

peemac said:


> Quality of teaching, just like the quality of healthcare is excellent.


Really? The statistics don't bear that out, especially in healthcare.


----------



## Allpartied (15 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> No, that's how you close businesses and ruin people's futures. If you want people to be better paid then you train them so that they are more skilled and their labour is worth more. The movement of capital to the developing world over the last 30 years has lifted 4 billion people out of abject poverty. My concern for poor people stretched beyond my national border and people who look like me.
> Of course multinational corporations and their owners should pay way more tax but in Ireland "the rich", people who earn very high wages, are already paying massive amounts of tax and carrying the  rest of us.
> Unions protect the haves from the have-nots and encourage waste and low standards. They encourage protectionism and trade barriers which cause untold suffering around the world. At home they bully and coerce people into submission who have the temerity to speak their own mind.
> The Unions in the health sector are the reason people die on trolleys etc. Their leaders have blood on their hands.
> They are despicable contemptible self serving parasites, a cancer on Irish society so no, I wouldn't join a Union.



Whilst I enjoy your anti-public sector rants, and your hatred of trade unions, I will rest easy. 

On your own you won't achieve anything. The Trade Union movement has achieved huge benefits for all Irish workers, including you. 
So, annual leave, sick leave, pensions, the five day week, overtime rates, the minimum wage, Bank Holidays, holiday pay, health and safety in the workplace, a range of other stuff that we all take for granted.  Vast majority of those gains were achieved in the face of right wing opposition and business leaders, who told us it was unaffordable and would cost jobs.


----------



## Allpartied (15 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> Really? The statistics don't bear that out, especially in healthcare.




Ireland has room for improvement, but it's doing ok in healthcare outcomes, across a range of disease and illnesses. The public system is very good at primary healthcare management and access to hospitals is reasonable.  My experience of the Irish healthcare system, as someone who has worked in NHS and HSE, is that Ireland  has a healthcare workforce which is very adaptable, flexible and extremely hard working. 
Can things get better? Of course, they can and the unions in Ireland work very closely with govt, (perhaps too closely) 
During the financial crisis, public sector workers took significant wage cuts, increased hours, reduced sick pay and reduced holiday entitlement.  That was union negotiated and is unprecedented across Europe.  



			https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30818-8/fulltext


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Whilst I enjoy your anti-public sector rants, and your hatred of trade unions, I will rest easy.
> 
> On your own you won't achieve anything. The Trade Union movement has achieved huge benefits for all Irish workers, including you.
> So, annual leave, sick leave, pensions, the five day week, overtime rates, the minimum wage, Bank Holidays, holiday pay, health and safety in the workplace, a range of other stuff that we all take for granted.  Vast majority of those gains were achieved in the face of right wing opposition and business leaders, who told us it was unaffordable and would cost jobs.


 I agree. They did a great job 80 years ago when they represented low paid working people. Now they represent the will paid and powerful and gain unjustified benefits at the expense of low paid working people. It's like the last few pages of Animal Farm.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Ireland has room for improvement, but it's doing ok in healthcare outcomes, across a range of disease and illnesses. The public system is very good at primary healthcare management and access to hospitals is reasonable.  My experience of the Irish healthcare system, as someone who has worked in NHS and HSE, is that Ireland  has a healthcare workforce which is very adaptable, flexible and extremely hard working.
> Can things get better? Of course, they can and the unions in Ireland work very closely with govt, (perhaps too closely)
> During the financial crisis, public sector workers took significant wage cuts, increased hours, reduced sick pay and reduced holiday entitlement.  That was union negotiated and is unprecedented across Europe.
> 
> ...


Have a reda of this. 
Page 9 highlights that we spend 20% more than the OECD average, adjusted for purchasing power, despite having a very young population, We have fewer doctors and nurses in the healthcare system but because they are so well paid we spend more than average on wages. Of course the people who choose to mispreresnet the facts say that we spend below average per capita as a percentage of GDP, knowing that our GPD is grossly inflated and spending per capita as a percentage of GNI is a much fairer and better measure.
Basically we spend more than anyone else when our demographics are taken into account and we get an alright service once you wan wait for a year to get seen. In short we get really bad value for money.


----------

