# The other side of Michael D Higgins



## onq (29 Oct 2011)

*Any  fear I had that Michael D. might be a bit of a wimp has been totally  blown away by his performance on this excerpt from The Right Hook. (strong stuff, so be warned)
*

*Michael D Higgins unloads on Tea Party favorite Michael Graham*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOxKnsT-XZg


----------



## ajapale (29 Oct 2011)

Impressive stuff!

"Be proud to be a decent American!"


----------



## Paddyman (30 Oct 2011)

Great link! Michael D. is a courageous campaigner on long distance causes.

But what a pity he remained so quiet while Labour/Fine Gael upped the austerity measures against the poor, unemployed, ill and old in this county.

Yes he was right about the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin's Mary Lou McDonald criticising Labour over their support for cutbacks - while SF implemented them up north.

But that is no excuse for his silence!


----------



## Purple (30 Oct 2011)

Paddyman said:


> Great link! Michael D. is a courageous campaigner on long distance causes.
> 
> But what a pity he remained so quiet while Labour/Fine Gael upped the austerity measures against the poor, unemployed, ill and old in this county.
> 
> ...


While I agreed with much of what he said (follow the Newstalk link from YouTube for full discussion) his support for terrorists and his unwillingness to condemn terrorist actions are disturbing. The bullying (shouting over the other contributor) and name calling didn't do him much credit either. If he was called the name he used he would have been apoplectic.


----------



## BOXtheFOX (30 Oct 2011)

I have to say I am a little concerned about Mrs. Michael D. Is it my imagination or is she elbowing him just a little out of the way?


----------



## ajapale (30 Oct 2011)

BOXtheFOX said:


> Is it my imagination or is she elbowing him just a little out of the way?


 I dont understand this comment?? The link is just an audio feed? Who is "she"?


----------



## Birroc (30 Oct 2011)

BOXtheFOX said:


> I have to say I am a little concerned about Mrs. Michael D. Is it my imagination or is she elbowing him just a little out of the way?


 
Are you saying Mrs Higgins will have her finger on the button!?


----------



## BOXtheFOX (30 Oct 2011)

Sorry. I should have started a new thread. I was just commenting on *Mrs.* Michael D. She seems to like the limelight.


----------



## Yorrick (31 Oct 2011)

I listened to him on the radio yesterday. Dreadful aspirational guff. Its going to be a long seven years


----------



## Complainer (31 Oct 2011)

Yorrick said:


> I listened to him on the radio yesterday. Dreadful aspirational guff. Its going to be a long seven years



Hopefully, you'll work out where the 'off' button on the radio is before the end of the seven years.


----------



## Deiseblue (31 Oct 2011)

BOXtheFOX said:


> Sorry. I should have started a new thread. I was just commenting on *Mrs.* Michael D. She seems to like the limelight.



TV certainly picked up on Sabina Higgin's obvious & justified joy that her husband was elected as our next President.

Could that be interpreted as hogging the limelight - personally I don't think so.


----------



## BOXtheFOX (31 Oct 2011)

Hogging?


----------



## PaddyBloggit (31 Oct 2011)

hogging = taking over/dominating etc.


----------



## STEINER (31 Oct 2011)

dominatrix maybe


----------



## PaddyBloggit (31 Oct 2011)

time will tell ...


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> Hopefully, you'll work out where the 'off' button on the radio is before the end of the seven years.



That's right; if you don't like what your President says then just ignore it.


----------



## cork (1 Nov 2011)

Paddyman said:


> Yes he was right about the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin's Mary Lou McDonald criticising Labour over their support for cutbacks - while SF implemented them up north.!




Mary Lou has no problem with shinner cutbacks up north.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2011)

cork said:


> Mary Lou has no problem with shinner cutbacks up north.



Yea, it's only "Down here" where there's a problem.


----------



## Nige (3 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> TV certainly picked up on Sabina Higgin's obvious & justified joy that her husband was elected as our next President.


 
It's Sabina *Coyne.*


----------



## liaconn (3 Nov 2011)

Nige said:


> It's Sabina *Coyne.*


 
No, she's using her married name now apparently.


----------



## BOXtheFOX (4 Nov 2011)

liaconn said:


> No, she's using her married name now apparently.


 
Oh! Higgins is good enough now?


----------



## Complainer (4 Nov 2011)

liaconn said:


> No, she's using her married name now apparently.



Source please?


----------



## liaconn (4 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> Source please?


 

I was told by someone who works in Aras an Uachtarin.


----------



## Complainer (4 Nov 2011)

liaconn said:


> I was told by someone who works in Aras an Uachtarin.



Seeing as they haven't moved in yet, that is hardly a reliable source. In fact, it seems like a not-so-subtle attempt to denigrate a lady. If there were any such change in policy, I'd have thought that RTE would have been made aware of it;

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1103/president.html


----------



## Latrade (4 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> Seeing as they haven't moved in yet, that is hardly a reliable source. In fact, it seems like a not-so-subtle attempt to denigrate a lady. If there were any such change in policy, I'd have thought that RTE would have been made aware of it;
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1103/president.html


 
As you often ask for sources, just to clarify; someone who is working at Aras an Uachtarin and probably pretty actively involved with preparation for the new President and his family, isn't reliable?


----------



## liaconn (4 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> Seeing as they haven't moved in yet, that is hardly a reliable source. In fact, it seems like a not-so-subtle attempt to denigrate a lady. If there were any such change in policy, I'd have thought that RTE would have been made aware of it;
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1103/president.html


 
They have already been given instructions on how to address her. Do you seriously think there is no active engagement between the Aras staff and the new President until after the inauguration??


----------



## T McGibney (4 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> In fact, it seems like a not-so-subtle attempt to denigrate a lady.http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1103/president.html



A rather slight exaggeration, I think ?


----------



## Complainer (4 Nov 2011)

Latrade said:


> As you often ask for sources, just to clarify; someone who is working at Aras an Uachtarin and probably pretty actively involved with preparation for the new President and his family, isn't reliable?


A 2nd-hand report what what someone working at Áras an Uachtaráin was supposedly told isn't a reliable source for me. Somebody in that Askaboutmoney.com place told me that Latrade  frequently breaks wind in meetings. Reliable, or not?



liaconn said:


> They have already been given instructions on how to address her.


Great - any chance that you could get a copy of the instructions?


T McGibney said:


> A rather slight exaggeration, I think ?



BoxTheFox doesn't seem to think so.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2011)

liaconn said:


> They have already been given instructions on how to address her. Do you seriously think there is no active engagement between the Aras staff and the new President until after the inauguration??



Don't worry, I believe you.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> BoxTheFox doesn't seem to think so.



Don't mind him. Its the lady's own decision and nobody else's. Her choice won't in the slightest affect my opinion of her. I expect that she will become very popular in her new role as Presidential spouse, just as Martin McAleese and Nick Robinson achieved before her.


----------



## Latrade (4 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> A 2nd-hand report what what someone working at Áras an Uachtaráin was supposedly told isn't a reliable source for me. Somebody in that Askaboutmoney.com place told me that Latrade frequently breaks wind in meetings. Reliable, or not?


 
All sources are 2nd hand whether it be an "insider" telling a journalist or someone directly involved in a processes telling a poster here. The question is whether you trust the person "publishing" the anecdote or 2nd hand source and their judgement as you would with a newspaper.  

But I understand that it is important to have readily moveable goal posts in order to never concede a point.


----------



## liaconn (4 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> A 2nd-hand report what what someone working at Áras an Uachtaráin was supposedly told isn't a reliable source for me. Somebody in that Askaboutmoney.com place told me that Latrade frequently breaks wind in meetings. Reliable, or not?
> 
> 
> Great - any chance that you could get a copy of the instructions?
> ...


 

You seem to be taking this very seriously.  Why on earth would my friend make up something stupid like that?????


----------



## Firefly (4 Nov 2011)

t mcgibney said:


> don't mind him. Its the lady's own decision and nobody else's. Her choice won't in the slightest affect my opinion of her. I expect that she will become very popular in her new role as presidential spouse, just as martin mcaleese and nick robinson achieved before her.



:d


----------



## Complainer (4 Nov 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Don't mind him. Its the lady's own decision and nobody else's. Her choice won't in the slightest affect my opinion of her. I expect that she will become very popular in her new role as Presidential spouse, just as Martin McAleese and Nick Robinson achieved before her.


There is no clarity that the lady has made any such decision at all, though you're probably right with the gist of your post.


Latrade said:


> All sources are 2nd hand whether it be an "insider" telling a journalist or someone directly involved in a processes telling a poster here.


Not true. If we were to hear directly from somebody who worked in the Aras, that would be first hand. If we hear from a friend of somebody who works in the Aras, that is second hand. 


liaconn said:


> Why on earth would my friend make up something stupid like that?????


Maybe for the same reason that you chose to post it, and BoxTheFox chose to use it to have a dig?


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> There is no clarity that the lady has made any such decision at all, though you're probably right with the gist of your post.
> 
> Not true. If we were to hear directly from somebody who worked in the Aras, that would be first hand. If we hear from a friend of somebody who works in the Aras, that is second hand.
> 
> Maybe for the same reason that you chose to post it, and BoxTheFox chose to use it to have a dig?



So to sum up;
Liaconn made a comment about the woman that you accept is probably true.

Another poster poked some gentle fun at the woman (sorry, she's a lady) and you threw your toys out of the pram and called Liaconn's integrity into question.

Charming.

Some day when Democratic Left, sorry, Labour, get into power criticism of the Party will be banned but at the moment it's still tolerated.

BTW, comments made to reporters and then printed in a newspaper without naming the source are second hand. No amount of party spin on your behalf will change that.


----------



## onq (5 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> Some day when Democratic Left, sorry, Labour, get into power criticism of the Party will be banned but at the moment it's still tolerated.




Scratch a Labour critic and you find a ...?


LOL!


----------



## ajapale (5 Nov 2011)

Can we get back to the topic please?

Letting Off Steam   	>  The other side of Michael D Higgins

I found the examples which shed light on Michael D as a tough adversarial combative politician very interesting and somewhat at odds with his caricature as a somewhat effete, intellectual, wimp (OP's words and not mine).


----------



## T McGibney (5 Nov 2011)

ajapale said:


> Can we get back to the topic please?
> 
> Letting Off Steam       >  The other side of Michael D Higgins
> 
> I found the examples which shed light on Michael D as a tough adversarial combative politician very interesting and somewhat at odds with his caricature as a somewhat effete, intellectual, wimp (OP's words and not mine).




Anyone who has ever encountered Michael D at any level in real life will know that he is the polar opposite of an 'effete, intellectual, wimp'. That said I thought that his foul-mouthed ad-hominem attack on Michael Graham was a very poor reflection of Higgins' manners.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2011)

onq said:


> Scratch a Labour critic and you find a ...?



...person who believes in democracy and the rights of the individual?

Michael D didn't survive this long in politics without being able to fight his corner. He's a very formidable person. I just hope he puts the national interest ahead of what he's personally interested in while he is in office.


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> ...person who believes in democracy and the rights of the individual?
> 
> Michael D didn't survive this long in politics without being able to fight his corner. He's a very formidable person. I just hope he puts the national interest ahead of what he's personally interested in while he is in office.



Ah now - that's more than a bit extreme , are you seriously suggesting that the Labour Party , it's members & supporters are somehow enemies of democracy & the rights of the individual ?

Bit of a stretch - surely ?


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2011)

Labour seeks to impose a collectivist ideology on citizens. That requires excessive restrictions the rights and freedoms of the individual.


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> Labour seeks to impose a collectivist ideology on citizens. That requires excessive restrictions the rights and freedoms of the individual.


 
Could we perhaps have a number of examples of how Labour actually follows through this mantra in Ireland ?

I presume that our collective rights & freedoms are enshrined in the constitution - I don't remember the Labour Party attempting to dilute same.


----------



## T McGibney (5 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Could we perhaps have a number of examples of how Labour actually follows through this mantra in Ireland ?
> 
> I presume that our collective rights & freedoms are enshrined in the constitution - I don't remember the Labour Party attempting to dilute same.



Last week's botched referendum power grab was a prime example. The long-running campaign for a so-called 'childrens rights' referendum is another.


----------



## Deiseblue (6 Nov 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Last week's botched referendum power grab was a prime example. The long-running campaign for a so-called 'childrens rights' referendum is another.



You will have to be a little more specific.

Weren't both referenda both actual & proposed broadly supported by all parties across the political divide ?

The reference to a " referendum power grab " leaves me puzzled.

The children's rights referendum was first proposed by FF in 2006 by the bould Bertie .


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2011)

Labour is in favour of high taxation and big government. The former weakens the individual and the latter increases the size and power of the government.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> Labour is in favour of high taxation and big government. The former weakens the individual and the latter increases the size and power of the government.



Easy to say , but rather more difficult to prove.

Source ?


----------



## T McGibney (7 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Weren't both referenda both actual & proposed broadly supported by all parties across the political divide ?



What has this to do with anything?



Deiseblue said:


> The reference to a " referendum power grab " leaves me puzzled.



You don't seem to be aware that the purpose of the failed referendum was to confer additional powers on politicians. Thankfully the electorate rejected it.




Deiseblue said:


> The children's rights referendum was first proposed by FF in 2006 by the bould Bertie .



Again what has this to do with anything?


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Easy to say , but rather more difficult to prove.
> 
> Source ?


My source is history and common sense. 
Socialists seek to create a state which is collectivist in nature. They are in favour of large government and redistribution of wealth.
Whomever controls the wealth controls everything. Therefore if the government controls the wealth then it controls the people. If the people control the wealth them they control the government.
The best historical example in England; when the monarch was restored after the civil war they only power that parliament took from the king was the right to levy taxes. The king could still do whatever he liked but he had to ask parliament to pay for it. That meant that in effect the king was powerless. 
The more of the people’s money the state has the more powerful the state is. 
By the way the largest party in the last two governments was Fianna Fail. They are a socialist party. Indeed they are typical of a socialist party; riddles with corruption and clientism and lacking the understanding of back economics. At least Labour are less clientist and, for the most part, are not corrupt.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Nov 2011)

History is exactly that - the past.

What facts convince you that the current Irish Labour Party are enemies of individual rights & proponents of higher taxation & bigger Government ?


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Nov 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Last week's botched referendum power grab was a prime example. The long-running campaign for a so-called 'childrens rights' referendum is another.



The suggestion inherent in this post is that Labour have somehow gone on a solo run with regard to both these referenda.

Such is definitely not the case particularly as evidenced by the fact that the children's right referendum was first mooted by FF , one must also suppose that FG had a huge say in the referendum on increasing Oireachtas powers which I also rejected as a voter - one after all must not always blindly follow Governmental rationale


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> History is exactly that - the past.
> 
> What facts convince you that the current Irish Labour Party are enemies of individual rights & proponents of higher taxation & bigger Government ?



I have formed my opinion over many years listening to Labour Party members, TD's and supporters as well as observing their actions in government. You cannot re-organise society as Labour wishes without infringing the right of the individual to self determination. 

I have great respect for many Labour Party politicians and I regard them as the most ethical party in the Dail, I just disagree with where their objectives will lead us. Big government will always end up imposing unacceptable restrictions on the freedom of the individual and will attempt to manipulate free market economics, the results of which are now being seen in this country.


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> The suggestion inherent in this post is that Labour have somehow gone on a solo run with regard to both these referenda.
> 
> Such is definitely not the case particularly as evidenced by the fact that the children's right referendum was first mooted by FF ,


FF is a socialist party as well.




Deiseblue said:


> one must also suppose that FG had a huge say in the referendum on increasing Oireachtas powers which I also rejected as a voter - one after all must not always blindly follow Governmental rationale


 Glad to see there's one labour Party member posting here who doesn't always toe the party line. Just keep your head down when the commissar visits or you may end up getting re-educated


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> I have formed my opinion over many years listening to Labour Party members, TD's and supporters as well as observing their actions in government. You cannot re-organise society as Labour wishes without infringing the right of the individual to self determination.
> 
> I have great respect for many Labour Party politicians and I regard them as the most ethical party in the Dail, I just disagree with where their objectives will lead us. Big government will always end up imposing unacceptable restrictions on the freedom of the individual and will attempt to manipulate free market economics, the results of which are now being seen in this country.



Well made points Purple , but  essentially it is your own personal opinion ( which I respect ) & such opinion remains factually unsupported .


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Well made points Purple , but  essentially it is your own personal opinion ( which I respect ) & such opinion remains factually unsupported .



Yep, that's why they are called opinions 

(Just think how bad I'd be if I could back them up with facts!)


----------



## dereko1969 (7 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> I have formed my opinion over many years listening to Labour Party members, TD's and supporters as well as observing their actions in government. You cannot re-organise society as Labour wishes without infringing the right of the individual to self determination.
> 
> I have great respect for many Labour Party politicians and I regard them as the most ethical party in the Dail, I just disagree with where their objectives will lead us. *Big government will always end up imposing unacceptable restrictions on the freedom of the individual and will attempt to manipulate free market economics, the results of which are now being seen in this country*.


 
Was it not the absence of decent Government oversight of the free market economy in this State that led us to where we are now?


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2011)

dereko1969 said:


> Was it not the absence of decent Government oversight of the free market economy in this State that led us to where we are now?



No, it was state interference in the free market that got us here.
That interference took the form of tax breaks for the construction industry (and others), pay increases in the protected sectors, restrictions in supply in the professions, minimum wage increases and welfare increases that were ahead of inflation and capital spending programmes that pumped more money into an already massively over-heated economy.
The fact that the regulator was asleep at the wheel and the Mandarins in the Department of Finance were more interested in keeping their job and gaining promotion than doing the right thing is secondary to the causes.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> FF is a socialist party as well.
> 
> 
> Glad to see there's one labour Party member posting here who doesn't always toe the party line. Just keep your head down when the commissar visits or you may end up getting re-educated



FF are a shower of opportunistic chancres whose mantra seems to be " all things to all men " - not socialist by inclination rather vote grabbing political mercenaries.


----------



## MrMan (7 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> FF are a shower of opportunistic chancres whose mantra seems to be " all things to all men " - not socialist by inclination rather vote grabbing political mercenaries.



Source?


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2011)

mrman said:


> source?



Lol


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Nov 2011)

MrMan said:


> Source?



Showtime , the inside story of Fianna Fail in power by Pat Leahy is a good start.

The collusion of FF with developers & the construction industry is also a good reference point.

The continuous reduction to our tax base to buy votes prior to various elections allied to the various tax breaks & the hugely populist savings scheme

More ?


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> FF are a shower of opportunistic chancres whose mantra seems to be " all things to all men " - not socialist by inclination rather vote grabbing political mercenaries.


FF collusion with the Trade Unions to undermine democracy in this country through social(ist) partnership shows their socialist inclinations.


----------



## Sunny (7 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> FF are a shower of opportunistic chancres whose mantra seems to be " all things to all men " - not socialist by inclination rather vote grabbing political mercenaries.


 
Doesn't that basically sum up the majority of modern political parties in most Countries? PD's, Labour, Greens all went into Government with certain ideologies but forget about them pretty quickly when the reality of Government kicks in.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> FF collusion with the Trade Unions to undermine democracy in this country through social(ist) partnership shows their socialist inclinations.



Given our parlous economic state in 1987 FF had no option but to introduce the social partnership model which it must be remembered also included the biggest employer body as a counterweight to union involvement - it should also be remembered that FG gave their unequivocal backing at the time.

Were they right to do so - I believe so as this model proved hugely successful.

I certainly didn't believe that I was living under a socialist Government between 1987 & 2011 !


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Given our parlous economic state in 1987 FF had no option but to introduce the social partnership model which it must be remembered also included the biggest employer body as a counterweight to union involvement - it should also be remembered that FG gave their unequivocal backing at the time.
> 
> Were they right to do so - I believe so as this model proved hugely successful.
> 
> I certainly didn't believe that I was living under a socialist Government between 1987 & 2011 !



Trade Unions succeeded in blackmailing the Irish people into giving them unprecedented power over how the country was run with the threat of bringing the country to its knees. FF agreed to this as they were and are fundamentally a populist socialist party. The PD’s could not be described as a socialist party but they certainly weren’t right wing as they presided over the erosion of the income tax base which saw low earners paying around one third of the income tax that their counterparts in the rest of the EU paid (while higher earners paid around 75% of the EU average). Once the PD’s were wiped out there was a strong lurch to the left. The current government is probably more centralist than the last one (it’s also far less corrupt and, with a few exceptions, somewhat less inept).

The social(ist) partnership model is one of the primary reasons we are in our current mess. It did work well for the first few years but once the unions took over and the tail started wagging the dog we were well and truly screwed.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

The social partnership agreement provided industrial stability allied to moderate pay rises - days lost to Industrial disputes fell to all time low levels - this model helped to lead to the " Celtic Tiger" era & unprecedented economic prosperity.

Then FF's appalling mismanagement in Government , which had little to do with socialism & more to do with vote grabbing & colluding with it's real partners the building industry , developers & Bankers sunk us.

The contention that socialist parties are big on increasing taxation could certainly never be levelled at FF !

I will certainly never agree that FF are a socialist party but the term inept populism certainly applies.


----------



## Delboy (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> The social partnership agreement provided industrial stability allied to moderate pay rises - days lost to Industrial disputes fell to all time low levels - this model helped to lead to the " Celtic Tiger" era & unprecedented economic prosperity.



Of course industrial disputes became a rarity when everyone was getting paid off!!! The union leadership were hardly going to rouse their members into kicking up over X,Y or Z and bite the hand that was feeding them....

The Unions had no right to have such a say in our national affairs. And to say that IBEC was a counterweight in the initiative is pushing it to say the least. IBEC are inept and have little or no credibility in my opinion.

In 1987, FF could have said to the Unions put up or shut up- they did'nt have to take them into partnership at all costs. Time to modernise, get into the 20th century (never mind prepare for the 21st!) or the whole show can go bankrupt and we'll see what the IMF will do to outdated work practices etc. This failure to modernise is still with us today in archaic work practices, job for life culture, public services to benefit employees first and the public second etc


----------



## MrMan (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Showtime , the inside story of Fianna Fail in power by Pat Leahy is a good start.
> 
> The collusion of FF with developers & the construction industry is also a good reference point.
> 
> ...



Apart from my post being a joke, If you took away blind labour loyalty and replaced it with blind ff loyalty, your post might read differently and that is why I think that political party discussions are doomed to an everlasting cycle of unrelenting unbalanced opinion.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

People were paid off - moderate pay increases were negotiated by the largest employer representative body & the Unions with the Government acting as facilitators-a large number of non unionised companies also paid their employees in line with national wage agreements as they also felt that such increases were indeed moderate.

The argument that IBEC may or may not be adequate representatives is nothing to do with Unions.

If you are basing an argument on how you feel FF should have dealt with the Unions in 1987 then that horse has not only bolted but has died since !

The Croke Park Agreement is the framework for change in the Public Sector - this Agreement has the support of the current Government & the Unions & the IMF seem quite prepared to give it every chance .


----------



## T McGibney (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> -a large number of non unionised companies also paid their employees in line with national wage agreements *as they also felt that such increases were indeed moderate.*



Ahem.

Of course there was no labour market shortages in bubble-era Ireland  And we had the lowest wages in the world 



Deiseblue said:


> The argument that IBEC may or may not be adequate representatives is nothing to do with Unions.


Yes, but it was you who cited IBEC participation 'as a counterweight to union involvement' in social(ist) partnership


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

MrMan said:


> Apart from my post being a joke, If you took away blind labour loyalty and replaced it with blind ff loyalty, your post might read differently and that is why I think that political party discussions are doomed to an everlasting cycle of unrelenting unbalanced opinion.



I did see your post as a joke & quite a good one !

But you did open a door & I could not resist replying.

I do indeed support Labour based on their their politics but I am not blind to the fact that not all their views, stances & decisions should be considered infallible - just the majority


----------



## Delboy (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> The argument that IBEC may or may not be adequate representatives is nothing to do with Unions.
> 
> If you are basing an argument on how you feel FF should have dealt with the Unions in 1987 then that horse has not only bolted but has died since !
> 
> The Croke Park Agreement is the framework for change in the Public Sector - this Agreement has the support of the current Government & the Unions & the IMF seem quite prepared to give it every chance .



T'was you who brought up IBEC and 1987.

The Croke Park agreement is practically useless. It will deilver very little real change in the long term- yes it will give cost savings in the short term which is what the IMF are worried about.

Until the day comes that civil and public servants (of which I am one) no longer have a job for life, then real change will never happen. 
Organisations trying to operate with staff who can't be fired, no matter how inept or insubordinate that they are....or when the bad times hit and surplus staff cannot be let go to bring down costs, they only get moved around....well, thats not change then is it. It's just rearranging the deck chairs. And it's just organisations existing for the good of their staff at a cost to the general public whom they are supposed to be providing a service to.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Ahem.
> 
> Of course there was no labour market shortages in bubble-era Ireland  And we had the lowest wages in the world
> 
> ...



It was Delboy's argument that IBEC were less than adequate representatives of employers - I never stated that.

I reiterate my initial comments - IBEC were a counterweight to union involvement involvement in the social partnership model & were instrumental in agreeing moderate pay increases.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

Delboy said:


> T'was you who brought up IBEC and 1987.
> 
> The Croke Park agreement is practically useless. It will deilver very little real change in the long term- yes it will give cost savings in the short term which is what the IMF are worried about.
> 
> ...



I did indeed bring up IBEC & 1987 as background to my argument - T'was you that based your argument on what you feel should have happened in 1987 rather than what actually happened.

You may refer to the Croke Park Agreement as simply moving the deck chairs but the government as employers & the Unions representing employees quite frankly see it as the best way not only to change practises , reduce numbers but also to guarantee industrial peace ( such peace being a Government imperative.

The recent Government statements on the forthcoming budget & recent media reports convince me that the Croke Park Agreement remains sacrosanct.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I reiterate my initial comments - IBEC were a counterweight to union involvement involvement in the social partnership model & were instrumental in agreeing moderate pay increases.



We’ve been around the houses a few times on this one.
IBEC represents organisations in the protected sectors; banking and so-called commercial semi-states (they are the businesses that can increase their prices the more inefficient they are). Some foreign multinationals are members because they are forced to join when they get the grants to set up here but they are passive members. They guys running IBEC come from the unionised sector. Many of them are union members. 

Suggesting that they somehow represented the interests of employers in the private sector is just as absurd as suggesting that unions  represent the interests of the (mostly non-unionised) employees in the non-protected sectors of the economy.

The suggestion that the pay increases given under these carve-ups were moderate is also nonsense, especially when the many other additional pay increases are taken into account.

There was no representation of the vast majority of the internationally traded good and services sector in any of the socialist partnership carve-up’s. If you want an image for Social(ist) Partnership think of the animals looking in the window at the end of Orwell’s Animal Farm.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

We have indeed been around the houses on this one more than once !

I too bemoan the fact that a huge number of private sector employers were not represented in the social partnership model as I feel that this would have had the benefit of making the model truly representative - but the blunt truth is that such employers were unable to form such a truly representative body & as such were not able to force/lobby their way to the table & as such IBEC remain the largest body representing employers.

The wage increases were moderate - I know, I received them all !


----------



## liaconn (8 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> Maybe for the same reason that you chose to post it, and BoxTheFox chose to use it to have a dig?


 
I'm genuinely not with you Complainer. Why is it derogatory to say that Sabina Coyne will now be using her married name as the spouse of the President??


----------



## Delboy (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I too bemoan the fact that a huge number of private sector employers were not represented in the social partnership model as I feel that this would have had the benefit of making the model truly representative - but the blunt truth is that such employers were unable to form such a truly representative body & as such were not able to force/lobby their way to the table & as such IBEC remain the largest body representing employers.
> 
> The wage increases were moderate - I know, I received them all !



All people with a vote were involved in a democratic process in this country....it happens every 5 years and is called a General Election. The government are elected to run the country, not to sit and make decisions with a cohort of unions and some employer bodies thats suits the minority at the eventual expense of the majority.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

Delboy said:


> All people with a vote were involved in a democratic process in this country....it happens every 5 years and is called a General Election. The government are elected to run the country, not to sit and make decisions with a cohort of unions and some employer bodies thats suits the minority at the eventual expense of the majority.



We are totally agreed on that - the Government are mandated to govern & if they deem it necessary to involve Unions & others then that is merely an extension of the democratic process .


----------



## Complainer (8 Nov 2011)

liaconn said:


> I'm genuinely not with you Complainer. Why is it derogatory to say that Sabina Coyne will now be using her married name as the spouse of the President??



You should really ask BoxTheFox.



Delboy said:


> All people with a vote were involved in a democratic process in this country....it happens every 5 years and is called a General Election. The government are elected to run the country, not to sit and make decisions with a cohort of unions and some employer bodies thats suits the minority at the eventual expense of the majority.



Indeed, and all the chosen Governments had made clear commitments to a social partnership approach involving unions and others before those elections. So those policies were implemented on a democratic basis.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> We are totally agreed on that - the Government are mandated to govern & if they deem it necessary to involve Unions & others then that is merely an extension of the democratic process .


 So if the government said that it would set up a working group composed of the board of Ryan Air and would implement all decisions they made verbatim you’d be cool with that since it would be a decision of the democratically elected government? 



Complainer said:


> Indeed, and all the chosen Governments had made clear commitments to a social partnership approach involving unions and others before those elections. So those policies were implemented on a democratic basis.


 Yes, all of the major parties the electorate had the option of voting for were going to run with social(ist) partnership. Therefore no matter what the electorate wanted they were getting social(ist) partnership. I can see how this looks like a democratic choice to a socialist but...


----------



## Nige (8 Nov 2011)

liaconn said:


> No, she's using her married name now apparently.


 
funny that Michael D referred to her as Coyne in his acceptance speech.  He mustn't have been briefed by the people in the Aras.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> So if the government said that it would set up a working group composed of the board of Ryan Air and would implement all decisions they made verbatim you’d be cool with that since it would be a decision of the democratically elected government?
> 
> Yes, all of the major parties the electorate had the option of voting for were going to run with social(ist) partnership. Therefore no matter what the electorate wanted they were getting social(ist) partnership. I can see how this looks like a democratic choice to a socialist but...



I most certainly would not be happy in the highly unlikely event that the board of Ryan Air were consulted on Government decisions ( latest Paddy Power odds - 1,000 ,000 to 1  - get the money on now Purple ! )- the Unions & IBEC are the recognised largest representative bodies of employers & employees - the board of Ryan Air represent no one but the company & of course in your highly imaginative scenario you do not envisage a role for an opposite viewpoint - so not really partnership then , is it ?

In past elections , the question of social partnership was one that never came up on the doorstep as the perception was that everything was working fine & of course it never even entered the equation in terms of the last election - I never remember an election since 1987 when the question of social partnership was a factor.


----------



## Delboy (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> In past elections , the question of social partnership was one that never came up on the doorstep as the perception was that everything was working fine & of course it never even entered the equation in terms of the last election - I never remember an election since 1987 when the question of social partnership was a factor.



'perception was that everything was working fine'....indeed. 
Look at the Health Service with all the extra money thrown at it and the extra employees. Or all the extra teachers and assistants, whilst illiteracy rates continue to increase. Or the high costs of public services such as utilities and transport.
And now that everying is'nt fine, we're left stuck with high numbers and high wage bills...some people getting paid above average wages for doing next to nothing. And nothing can be done because once in and made permanent, you can't be moved out.

So applause for social partnership....brilliant work


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I most certainly would not be happy in the highly unlikely event that the board of Ryan Air were consulted on Government decisions ( latest Paddy Power odds - 1,000 ,000 to 1  - get the money on now Purple ! )- the Unions & IBEC are the recognised largest representative bodies of employers & employees - the board of Ryan Air represent no one but the company & of course in your highly imaginative scenario you do not envisage a role for an opposite viewpoint - so not really partnership then , is it ?


That’s my point; it’s not social partnership when the majority of the electorate are not represented by the social partners. IBEC and the unions are two sides of the same coin.
I’m not happy with any un-elected body or group having the level of influence that the so-called social partners had. 
The only people with a mandate to govern are the government. When they dilute that function by including vested interest groups they are undermining democracy.



Deiseblue said:


> In past elections , the question of social partnership was one that never came up on the doorstep as the perception was that everything was working fine & of course it never even entered the equation in terms of the last election - I never remember an election since 1987 when the question of social partnership was a factor.


 It was a factor for me and I’m not alone in that. The erosion of the tax base and pro-cyclical economic policies were probably not big issues on the doorsteps in any but the last election either. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have been.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> That’s my point; it’s not social partnership when the majority of the electorate are not represented by the social partners. IBEC and the unions are two sides of the same coin.
> I’m not happy with any un-elected body or group having the level of influence that the so-called social partners had.
> The only people with a mandate to govern are the government. When they dilute that function by including vested interest groups they are undermining democracy.
> 
> It was a factor for me and I’m not alone in that. The erosion of the tax base and pro-cyclical economic policies were probably not big issues on the doorsteps in any but the last election either. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have been.



My point is that successive Governments from 1987 deemed it necessary to involve employers & employees in social partnership - the only sizeable bodies representative of both parties were IBEC & the Unions - as has been pointed out I agree that Governments govern & if they choose to involve other parties in fiscal decisions then that is their right - some people may not like it but that does not make it any less of a democratic government decision.

The question of social partnership may have been an issue for some in previous elections but not of a sufficient number to make it an election issue.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> My point is that successive Governments from 1987 deemed it necessary to involve employers & employees in social partnership - the only sizeable bodies representative of both parties were IBEC & the Unions - as has been pointed out I agree that Governments govern & if they choose to involve other parties in fiscal decisions then that is their right - some people may not like it but that does not make it any less of a democratic government decision.
> 
> The question of social partnership may have been an issue for some in previous elections but not of a sufficient number to make it an election issue.


OK, so if the government announce that they will be passing over all decision making to the board of Ryan Air you will accept that, since they are the democratically elected government and therefore can choose not to govern. I wouldn’t accept that since I regard it as their duty to govern.
I wouldn’t even accept it if they said that they would consult with the board of Ryan Air and would give them what amounts to a veto over all government decisions (which is what the SIPTU/ICTU had under social partnership). Then again I’m old fashioned and a bit odd about democracy; I think it’s important and fragile and shouldn’t be taken for granted or diluted.


----------



## Complainer (8 Nov 2011)

Delboy said:


> And now that everying is'nt fine, we're left stuck with high numbers and high wage bills...some people getting paid above average wages for doing next to nothing.


We're actually stuck with lots of public servants being [broken link removed] and working their asses off to cope with increasing demand and reduced resources.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> We're actually stuck with lots of public servants being [broken link removed] and working their asses off to cope with increasing demand and reduced resources.



More nonsense from Fintan O’School. He should stick to writing about things he understands. The fact that you are quoting this rubbish says a lot about your understanding of costs and competitiveness, none of it good.

I’ll try to give you a very simple example;
You go into a supermarket and stop to buy a tin of beans. There are two brands on offer, both of equal quality and size. One is 25% more expensive than the other. Do you choose the more expensive brand because you know that the people producing it are paid more but have a higher cost of living or do you choose the cheaper brand, produced by people on lower wages but with the same standard of living?

I think the answer is neither of the above; you just buy the cheapest one because they are just beans and you don’t know or give a monkeys about the how’s and why’s that makes one more expensive than the other.

Well here’s the big news; the same applied to just about everything we export and consume.

Here’s another bombshell; high wages cause high prices, not the other way around.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> OK, so if the government announce that they will be passing over all decision making to the board of Ryan Air you will accept that, since they are the democratically elected government and therefore can choose not to govern. I wouldn’t accept that since I regard it as their duty to govern.
> I wouldn’t even accept it if they said that they would consult with the board of Ryan Air and would give them what amounts to a veto over all government decisions (which is what the SIPTU/ICTU had under social partnership). Then again I’m old fashioned and a bit odd about democracy; I think it’s important and fragile and shouldn’t be taken for granted or diluted.



Let me be quite clear about this - successive Governments chose to run with social partnership , to do so they involved Unions & IBEC amongst others - there is no question but that they were empowered to do so , both democratically & constitutionally.

The Government were not parties to the negotiations on pay , they were merely the facilitators although Bertie did quite like to make a last minute appearance.

You may consider the involvement of social partners as a dilution of democracy ,I consider such involvement to be a mere extension of the democratic process which of course it is.

Your point regarding the Ryan Air board  , whilst imaginative , stretches credulity - let's stick to reality.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Your point regarding the Ryan Air board  , whilst imaginative , stretches credulity - let's stick to reality.



No it doesn't, it would be exactly the same thing; a vested interest group with a veto over how the state is run.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> No it doesn't, it would be exactly the same thing; a vested interest group with a veto over how the state is run.



Of course it does - on 2 levels.

1. It will never happen.

2. The Ryan Air board are totally unrepresentative of anybody but their company - a vested interest yes , representative of anybody but themselves - No.

As I say - a hugely creative scenario based on a premise as likely as a zombie invasion.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Of course it does - on 2 levels.
> 
> 1. It will never happen.
> 
> ...



1. I agree that it will never happen. I am bringing it up as an example to show that Sicial(ist) Partnership is a subversion of democracy.

2. Unions are totally unrepresentative of anybody but their members. Again; where's the difference?


----------



## Sunny (8 Nov 2011)

Has this thread not gone ever so slightly off topic????


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> 1. I agree that it will never happen. I am bringing it up as an example to show that Sicial(ist) Partnership is a subversion of democracy.
> 
> 2. Unions are totally unrepresentative of anybody but their members. Again; where's the difference?



Unions represent 600,000 people in the Republic & IBEC are the largest employer representative in the state - if the Government decides to involve representative parties to participate in social partnership - who else are they going to call ?

You really could have picked a better example than the Ryan Air board , examples are best based on a somewhat more likely scenario - yours is based on pure fantasy.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Unions represent 600,000 people in the Republic & IBEC are the largest employer representative in the state - if the Government decides to involve representative parties to participate in social partnership - who else are they going to call ?
> 
> You really could have picked a better example than the Ryan Air board , examples are best based on a somewhat more likely scenario - yours is based on pure fantasy.



It doesn't matter how big or small the vested interest group is; they have no place in government.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> It doesn't matter how big or small the vested interest group is; they have no place in government.



Unless the elected Government decide they do - after all they are mandated to govern as they deem fit .


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Unless the elected Government decide they do - after all they are mandated to govern as they deem fit .



ok, so you're cool with the board of Ryan Air running things then.


----------



## Sunny (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Unless the elected Government decide they do - after all they are mandated to govern as they deem fit .



Well that's just silly. No government has a blank cheque to make decisions just because they are elected.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> ok, so you're cool with the board of Ryan Air running things then.



As I have pointed out such a scenario is pure fantasy & we have both agreed that such a scenario will never happen.

Can we please stick with the realities of social partnership - the only ones that will ever be involved are the largest representative bodies .


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

Sunny said:


> Well that's just silly. No government has a blank cheque to make decisions just because they are elected.



Successive Governments deemed it necessary to deal with Unions , employer reps & others in the social partnership model.

Simply a matter of fact - did those Governments act in an undemocratic or unconstitutional fashion ? - No.

In this situation - they governed as they deemed fit.

Of course Governments are mandated to rule as they deem fit - we place our trust in them to act responsibly ( unfortunately in the case of FF ) - although the cross party decision on the introduction of social partnership In 1987 was indeed a good one.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> As I have pointed out such a scenario is pure fantasy & we have both agreed that such a scenario will never happen.
> 
> Can we please stick with the realities of social partnership - the only ones that will ever be involved are the largest representative bodies .



What about the second largest representative bodies? or the third, or the tenth or the 100th? How big does a vested interest group have to be for you to be ok with it doing what we elect the government to do?


----------



## T McGibney (8 Nov 2011)

The big problems with social partnership are twofold
- the first and only allegiance of each 'social partner' is to their constituency, not to the general good of the country/
- the 'social partners' are unaccountable to the general populace. This leads to guys like David Begg sitting on the board of the Central Bank, proving neither capable nor willing to expose the wrongdoing there, and yet riding off unscathed into the sunset back to his day job as soon as the _merde_ hits the fan. At least the public got their chance to oust the politicians. Their social partnership cronies were untouchable, and remain so.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> What about the second largest representative bodies? or the third, or the tenth or the 100th? How big does a vested interest group have to be for you to be ok with it doing what we elect the government to do?



The number of representational bodies to be involved in the social partnership model has always been a Government decision.

We elect Government to govern & if they deem it necessary to introduce a social partnership model then it is incumbent on them to choose the most representative bodies for employers & employees both - did they do so - yes.

In the absence of social partnership pay negotiations would have been on a free for all basis & days lost to industrial disputes would have equalled or exceeded those lost pre 1987 - the days lost to industrial disputes still remain amongst the lowest in Europe.


----------



## Delboy (8 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> We're actually stuck with lots of public servants being [broken link removed] and working their asses off to cope with increasing demand and reduced resources.



thats odd, 'cos I see people around me every day earning well above the average industrial wage doing sweet damn all and in a lot of cases, they're incapable of doing anything meaningful for various reasons. But they cannot be let go, get regraded downwards, take a wage cut etc in the bad times, thus the cost of public services to the public remain high


----------



## Complainer (8 Nov 2011)

Delboy said:


> thats odd, 'cos I see people around me every day earning well above the average industrial wage doing sweet damn all and in a lot of cases, they're incapable of doing anything meaningful for various reasons. But they cannot be let go, get regraded downwards, take a wage cut etc in the bad times, thus the cost of public services to the public remain high



Well, I'm not quite sure that I'd give "what you see all around you" quite the same weight as an OECD report, but leaving that aside, where are all these people do sweet damn all? What specific organisations / departments are they working in?


----------



## Delboy (8 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> Well, I'm not quite sure that I'd give "what you see all around you" quite the same weight as an OECD report, but leaving that aside, where are all these people do sweet damn all? What specific organisations / departments are they working in?



Of course the OECD would see a lot more of whats happening on the ground...from their suites in the Merrion hotel!!!


----------



## Complainer (8 Nov 2011)

Delboy said:


> Of course the OECD would see a lot more of whats happening on the ground...from their suites in the Merrion hotel!!!



They probably never even landed in Ireland. But they did see more in their spreadsheets of comprehensive data than you'll see in a month of Sundays.

But leaving that aside, where are all these people doing sweet damn all? What specific organisations / departments are they working in?


----------



## Delboy (8 Nov 2011)

aye, whatever!

I've worked in several Public Service organisations as well as several private sector companies, large and small. So I've seen both sides of the divide and some of the wages paid in the Public Service are off the wall, for menial made up tasks....simply because of annual increments which as we know are a right, and are not earned


----------



## Complainer (8 Nov 2011)

So I guess we're not going to get a specific answer to " where are all these people doing sweet damn all? What specific organisations / departments are they working in?"


----------



## Delboy (8 Nov 2011)

Damn right! I'm not naming where I work!!!
You seem to know quiet a bit about the civil/public service....ask around and I'm sure you'll find similar examples


----------



## T McGibney (9 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> So I guess we're not going to get a specific answer to " where are all these people doing sweet damn all? What specific organisations / departments are they working in?"



Are you really living in this country??? 

Have you been speaking to anyone in HSE backoffices recently? I have heard reports from a few people working in different areas around the country that morale is at an all-time low and that people who worked very hard (including unpaid overtime) in the past are not bothering any more because they feel that they were foolish to do so at the time when others were doing nothing and getting promoted over them.

There are also similar reports emanating from Gardai whose superiors are retiring en masse leaving their organisational structures in poor nick, and who feel that this, coupled with the force's prehistoric technology setup (eg Gardai having to drive 10-20 miles to enter info on PULSE) and curbs on Garda overtime, are preventing them from doing their job properly. Hence its easier just to do the minimum and stay our of trouble.


----------



## Complainer (9 Nov 2011)

Delboy said:


> Damn right! I'm not naming where I work!!!
> You seem to know quiet a bit about the civil/public service....ask around and I'm sure you'll find similar examples


So just to be clear, the only specific examples of people 'doing sweet damn all' are in your own organisation - right?


T McGibney said:


> Are you really living in this country???


Yes, living in this country, working full-time in the public sector in role that has regular contact with HSE backoffice folk, local authority folk, central Department folk and and other agency folk.



T McGibney said:


> Have you been speaking to anyone in HSE backoffices recently? I have heard reports from a few people working in different areas around the country that morale is at an all-time low and that people who worked very hard (including unpaid overtime) in the past are not bothering any more because they feel that they were foolish to do so at the time when others were doing nothing and getting promoted over them.
> 
> There are also similar reports emanating from Gardai whose superiors are retiring en masse leaving their organisational structures in poor nick, and who feel that this, coupled with the force's prehistoric technology setup (eg Gardai having to drive 10-20 miles to enter info on PULSE) and curbs on Garda overtime, are preventing them from doing their job properly. Hence its easier just to do the minimum and stay our of trouble.


I don't disagree with parts of your post. In all fairness, doing the minimum is in a very different league to doing 'sweet damn all' as Delboy alleges. If people are doing the minimum, who could blame them, after four years of salary cuts, resource cuts, and being pilloried every time they open a newspaper or turn on the radio.

But to be very honest, that's not what I encounter most days of my working life. I see people working their asses off including unpaid overtime, flexitime way over the monthly threshold, not taking annual leave, and coping with reduced resources to continue to provide the highest quality public services they can possibly manage.


----------



## T McGibney (9 Nov 2011)

The basic problem is that longstanding morale in the public service has been shattered, and like Humpty Dumpty, is nigh on impossible to put back together again without sweeping changes across the board, starting at the top.  The political and administrative will to make those changes seems not to be there.



Complainer said:


> In all fairness, doing the  minimum is in a very different league to doing 'sweet damn all' as  Delboy alleges.



No, its not. Have you ever seen an organisation manage to carry out its basic functions effectively while staff are on effective 'work to rule'?



Complainer said:


> But to be very honest, that's not what I encounter most days of my  working life. I see people working their asses off including unpaid  overtime, flexitime way over the monthly threshold, not taking annual  leave, and coping with reduced resources to continue to provide the  highest quality public services they can possibly manage.



Do you mind me turning around your earlier question and asking you where are all these people 'working their asses off' and 'doing unpaid overtime'? What specific organisations / departments are they working in? The feedback I am getting is that this is a thing of the past.


----------



## Complainer (9 Nov 2011)

T McGibney said:


> The basic problem is that longstanding morale in the public service has been shattered, and like Humpty Dumpty, is nigh on impossible to put back together again without sweeping changes across the board, starting at the top.


Fully agree.



T McGibney said:


> No, its not. Have you ever seen an organisation manage to carry out its basic functions effectively while staff are on effective 'work to rule'?


Again, I'd see 'doing the minimum' as a bit different to effective 'work to rule'. Neither of them are very pretty, but if everyone on staff is 'doing the minimum', then the overall organisation is 'doing the minimum'. Minimum isn't great, but it is the minimum.



T McGibney said:


> Do you mind me turning around your earlier question and asking you where are all these people 'working their asses off' and 'doing unpaid overtime'? What specific organisations / departments are they working in? The feedback I am getting is that this is a thing of the past.


A few examples spring to mind - Dublin City Libraries, continuing to improve access to library services with reduced budgets and resources -  Revenue IT groups and customer services groups, continuing to improve customer services with reduced resources - Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Arts and Events team - continuing to provide great, free public events for all, like the Samhain Spooky Walk in Marlay Park over Halloween that attracted thousands of families, Railway Procurement Agency, continuing to develop improvements to the Luas service and the planned interconnect, having gone through a round of voluntary redundancies and possibly facing into compulsory redundancies shortly, depending on Govt decisions, many VECs round the country are continuing to provide existing services and some expanded services, while managing mergers, closure of Traveller training centres.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> Fully agree.
> 
> 
> Again, I'd see 'doing the minimum' as a bit different to effective 'work to rule'. Neither of them are very pretty, but if everyone on staff is 'doing the minimum', then the overall organisation is 'doing the minimum'. Minimum isn't great, but it is the minimum.
> ...



Yes, th walk in Marlay Park, the one with the 1 hour queue... yes, that was great  but yes, there are some great services provided by public bodies. The question is could they be delivered just as well or better for less?


----------



## Delboy (9 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> So just to be clear, the only specific examples of people 'doing sweet damn all' are in your own organisation - right?



Nope, I've seen it in all the public service organisations I've worked in. Some people do nothing, some do very little....there is a good sized cohort who work well and hard, and then there are a group who are under serious pressure and work long hours. All go up the increments scale each year regardless until they reach the top of that scale.

But those that do nothing can't get fired. They have issues or problems that the company has to work around and so they are given relatively easy or even made up tasks (internal post, filing/sorting etc) even if these task are'nt really a 7hr day job. But they still draw a full wage, which after 10 or 15 years of service, puts them well ahead of the average industrial wage in this country from what I've seen.
The people who do very little...well your better off a lot of the time carrying out the task yourself rather than asking them to take it on. You'd be just as long checking it afterwards in any case to see are the results right. They just want to clock in and out, work to the letter of their job role, and sit out their years till retirement.

I always think of the ESB plant in Rhodes in Offaly that shut down but the workers stayed on!!! They sat there for over a year playing pool and making tea, refusing to move to new roles within ESB until an agreement (more compensation on top fo what they already were due to get for the move) was reached. it just would'nt be tolerated within the private sector...and it should'nt be tolerated by the public either as it adds to the cost of their public services.

Now this is'nt a simple black and white case, but it illustrates what I believe to be a common attitude amongst workers in the public service....the organisations exist to serve the employees first and the public second. And thats my experience as I stated in previous posts.

So I don't see why anyone on here should be getting personal with me over this or demand that I name where I work or have worked. It's what I've encountered and still see every day. There are good people and bad people in all companies/organisations....but at least in the private sector, the danger of losing your jobs acts as a reality call to some people who would otherwise be prone to 'drifting' through their career...in my opinion, of course!


----------



## michaelm (9 Nov 2011)

T McGibney said:


> The big problems with social partnership are twofold


Perhaps, but I'd be more open to a claim that the advantages of simple origami are twofold.


----------



## T McGibney (9 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> A few examples spring to mind - Dublin City Libraries, continuing to improve access to library services with reduced budgets and resources -  Revenue IT groups and customer services groups, continuing to improve customer services with reduced resources - Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Arts and Events team - continuing to provide great, free public events for all, like the Samhain Spooky Walk in Marlay Park over Halloween that attracted thousands of families, Railway Procurement Agency, continuing to develop improvements to the Luas service and the planned interconnect, having gone through a round of voluntary redundancies and possibly facing into compulsory redundancies shortly, depending on Govt decisions, many VECs round the country are continuing to provide existing services and some expanded services, while managing mergers, closure of Traveller training centres.



I don't want to belittle any particular work group here but you're not exactly comparing like with like here.

For example VEC staff may well be under pressure in some respects but equally their workload is smaller, for example they no longer administer third level grant applications. 

Revenue have improved their IT functions but some aspects of these (eg ROS registration, Securemail) are still riddled with problems, of which their technical staff generally seem blissfully unaware, and new procedures introduced this year mean that it is now more difficult for an accounting firm to file an online tax return for a new client than it was a year ago.

And, while I like and appreciate my local library, I have yet to see anyone 'working their ass off' there.


----------



## Complainer (9 Nov 2011)

T McGibney said:


> I don't want to belittle any particular work group here but you're not exactly comparing like with like here.


I'm not comparing anything. I'm answering the question that you asked.



T McGibney said:


> For example VEC staff may well be under pressure in some respects but equally their workload is smaller, for example they no longer administer third level grant applications.


I'm talking about frontline VEC staff who had no involvement in administering grants.




T McGibney said:


> And, while I like and appreciate my local library, I have yet to see anyone 'working their ass off' there.


Because like the duck swimmiing, the real work goes on out of public sight.



T McGibney said:


> Revenue have improved their IT functions but some aspects of these (eg ROS registration, Securemail) are still riddled with problems, of which their technical staff generally seem blissfully unaware, and new procedures introduced this year mean that it is now more difficult for an accounting firm to file an online tax return for a new client than it was a year ago.


So what's the outcome - until EVERY single aspect of EVERY single public service is working PERFECTLY at ZERO cost, then no public servant can say that they are working their asses off?


----------



## T McGibney (9 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> So what's the outcome - until EVERY single aspect of EVERY single public service is working PERFECTLY at ZERO cost, then no public servant can say that they are working their asses off?



Where did I say that? You cited Revenue IT as 'continuing to improve customer services' as evidence of their staff 'working their asses off'. I just pointed out my own and other accountants' experience that their customer services have disimproved.


----------



## Complainer (9 Nov 2011)

Delboy said:


> So I don't see why anyone on here should be getting personal with me over this or demand that I name where I work or have worked. It's what I've encountered and still see every day. There are good people and bad people in all companies/organisations....but at least in the private sector, the danger of losing your jobs acts as a reality call to some people who would otherwise be prone to 'drifting' through their career...in my opinion, of course!


No-one is getting personal with you or demanding that you do anything. I'm simply asking that you validate your claim. Forget the history of what happened in the past. If you are aware of public bodies where today, the staff are sitting around doing damn all, please name the bodies concerned.



michaelm said:


> Perhaps, but I'd be more open to a claim that the advantages of simple origami are twofold.


Brilliant.



T McGibney said:


> Where did I say that? You cited Revenue IT as 'continuing to improve customer services' as evidence of their staff 'working their asses off'. I just pointed out my own and other accountants' experience that their customer services have disimproved.



If you could be more specific about the nature of the disimprovement, then we might be able to understand this. Perhaps this relates to security changes, or legislation changes, or whatever. It is unlikely (though not impossible) that disimprovement in service has arisen through sloppy work.

But regardless, the question was around where staff are working their asses off. Many staff that I deal with in those specific organisations are working their asses off at present.


----------



## Birroc (9 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> I'm simply asking that you validate your claim. Forget the history of what happened in the past. If you are aware of public bodies where today, the staff are sitting around doing damn all, please name the bodies concerned.


 
You asked me for that once and when I replied, you said nothing. If you remember I worked in 2 councils and 1 department for several years. I saw dossing in a big way with zero accountability and I know it's still going on. Not as much as before but everyone knows the shortcuts. But in my experience, for every 1 person doing SFA, there is another diligent worker holding the place together.


----------



## Complainer (9 Nov 2011)

Birroc said:


> You asked me for that once and when I replied, you said nothing. If you remember I worked in 2 councils and 1 department for several years. I saw dossing in a big way with zero accountability and I know it's still going on. Not as much as before but everyone knows the shortcuts. But in my experience, for every 1 person doing SFA, there is another diligent worker holding the place together.


Unfortunately, real life occasionally intrudes on my ability to keep up with debates here on AAM. Would you like to point me to the thread in question?

Anyway, I'm really not interested in past history. I'm interested in what is happening today in public bodies. If you know of organisations where there is 'dossing in a big way with zero accountability', please name them.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> If you know of organisations where there is 'dossing in a big way with zero accountability', please name them.



The Health Service:
Tallaght Hospital; who was fired when GP referral letters were left un-opened for months and years?
Who was fired when X-Rays were un-read/misread?
Who's in charge of quality in Tallaght Hospital? Who wrote their quality manual? Who audits the processes set out in their quality manual?
What are the sanctions imposable when an individual fails to comply with the procedures as set out in their quality manual? Who audits the internal audits? What level of training have the internal auditors received?

The above processes exist in every mickey-mouse business in Ireland with ISO13485:2003 (medical device) and ISO 9001:2008 (management system) certifications. I'm sure a hospital operates at at least that level. If Tallaght Hospital doesn't then the director of the hospital should be sacked. If there are no such requirements then the head of HIQA should be sacked. 
If the systems are in place the person who didn't follow them is responsible, if they are not in place then the person at the top is responsible.


----------



## Delboy (10 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> No-one is getting personal with you or demanding that you do anything. I'm simply asking that you validate your claim. Forget the history of what happened in the past. If you are aware of public bodies where today, the staff are sitting around doing damn all, please name the bodies concerned.



You say no one is demanding I do anything and then you ask again, that I name where I work or have worked and have seen people doing little or nothing!!!

name any public company and you'll be more than likely be on the money!


----------



## Delboy (10 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> Because like the duck swimmiing, the real work goes on out of public sight.



it's pretty hard to argue back to that!!! good night...


----------



## ajapale (10 Nov 2011)

Did any one hear Joeseph O'Connors radio blog on RTE 1 yesterday.

It describes how as a student he invited MDOH to UCD in the early 1980s to speak about the Sandanistas in Central America.


----------



## Complainer (10 Nov 2011)

Delboy said:


> You say no one is demanding I do anything and then you ask again, that I name where I work or have worked and have seen people doing little or nothing!!!
> 
> name any public company and you'll be more than likely be on the money!


It's just too easy to say 'name any public company'. We all know that you don't have direct personal knowledge of every public company. So either you have direct personal knowledge, or you don't. Either you're going to be part of the solution, or part of the problem. Take your pick.



Delboy said:


> it's pretty hard to argue back to that!!! good night...



Possibly because it's true. A calm environment is a sign of effective management. But the usual suspects round here will tell you that it means people aren't working. You'd swear that there are some people who just get a kick out of complaining.


----------



## DB74 (10 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> You'd swear that there are some people who just get a kick out of complaining.



Is there a prize for ironic post of the year?

This gets my vote!


----------



## Birroc (11 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> Anyway, I'm really not interested in past history. I'm interested in what is happening today in public bodies. If you know of organisations where there is 'dossing in a big way with zero accountability', please name them.


 
Galway County/City Councils, NUIG, HSE, Dept of Agriculture.

Now quid pro quo - It's a bit rich that you dont want to talk about history but can you tell me how many public servants were fired in the past 10 years for being useless at their jobs?


----------



## ajapale (11 Nov 2011)

Topic reminder:    	> Letting Off Steam   	>  The other side of Michael D Higgins

If you want to discuss alleged dossing in the public service then start a new thread about that.


----------



## Complainer (12 Nov 2011)

ajapale said:


> Topic reminder:    	> Letting Off Steam   	>  The other side of Michael D Higgins
> 
> If you want to discuss alleged dossing in the public service then start a new thread about that.



Fair enough. I've followed up with Birroc by PM.


----------

