# Central Bank: 800,000 adults don't want a job



## Protocol (23 Aug 2017)

New CBI work shows that over 800,000 working-age adults don't want a job.

https://www.centralbank.ie/publicat...rate-a-closer-look-at-the-irish-labour-market

https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/def...for-ireland-(byrne-and-conefrey).pdf?sfvrsn=2


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Aug 2017)

It's a catchy headline for sure but doesn't really say much. I might not want a job, but it doesn't stop me getting up in the morning to do a job.

The real issue is the lag between the official unemployment rate and the reality that that figure is made up of a lot of part-time workers who would actually like to see their hours increased. Hence, the claim, no inflationary pressure on wages.

I would dispute this, wage inflation pressures are everywhere. They are being resisted through credit expansion (unsustainable), technological changes and low productivity growth. That is to say, the primary driver of economic growth in the Western World is asset accumulation, onset by money printing schemes such as QE. This has is being credited with 'trickle-down' wealth effect inducing increased consumer spending. 
In reality, the return is paltry, and QE serves to do nothing other than create a 'trickle-up' wealth effect. This is why US stock markets are at all time highs and closer to home, Dublin and London are experiencing property booms once again.
Examples of wage inflationary pressures are;

Rents - all times highs, according to Daft.ie
Savings - next to non-existent for 60% of working population
Mortgage interest (mine) - up 3.5%
Interest on savings - non-existent
Charges on bank accounts that are greater than the interest paid on money on deposit.
Car insurance (mine) up 75%. I was actually quoted increases up to 145%.
Life assurance (mine) policy has devalued 54% in past year.
House insurance (mine), best quote I got was 10% higher than previous years premium.
Grocercies (-2%) - actually starting to make savings here.
Electricity (-2.5%) - purely because I participate in the annual provider swap circus, otherwise it would increase some 16%.
Childcare charges up 4%


----------



## Purple (24 Aug 2017)

Wow... I largely agree with TheBigShort.


----------



## Firefly (24 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I would dispute this, wage inflation pressures are everywhere. They are being resisted through credit expansion (unsustainable)...



Is the point here that low interest rates are enabling people on low incomes to consume from loans / debt? Just asking, as the rest of your post sounds right to me.


----------



## cremeegg (24 Aug 2017)

What TBS has identified is pressure on household budgets.

Pressure on wages is when employers are feeling pressure to increase pay.

That is not happening because Trade Unions are failing to do the hard work of organising outside the public sector.

They would rather increase the pressure on household budgets by hitting the easy targets in the public sector.

It a much easier life being a union organiser for nurses or teachers than for truck drivers or fast food workers.


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> What TBS has identified is pressure on household budgets.
> Pressure on wages is when employers are feeling pressure to increase pay.
> That is not happening because Trade Unions are failing to do the hard work of organising outside the public sector.
> They would rather increase the pressure on household budgets by hitting the easy targets in the public sector.
> It a much easier life being a union organiser for nurses or teachers than for truck drivers or fast food workers.



I agree with your "much easier life" angle, but I think one of the main reasons for lack of pressure is that employers are recruiting from a pool of hundreds of millions of workers rather than 5 million.
_(ps the Trade Unions were in favour of allowing that also though)_


----------



## cremeegg (24 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> I think one of the main reasons for lack of pressure is that employers are recruiting from a pool of hundreds of millions of workers rather than 5 million.



That is true, and while I recognise the effect on low skilled workers in high cost countries like Ireland, in terms of the bigger picture this is a great thing.

It is a great thing in itself that billions of people around the world have been lifted out of poverty in recent decades.

That also means that more and more people can afford the products of Irish output. Globalisation is not a fundamental problem, handling the effects of automation, is another matter.


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> That is true, and while I recognise the effect on low skilled workers in high cost countries like Ireland, in terms of the bigger picture this is a great thing.



Don't forget about the effect of high skilled workers also ... who come to work in Ireland in technical positions such as IT, engineering etc 
On a macro level probably they are helping Ireland's global competitiveness - but they are doing that by reducing the pressure on wages in those positions to increase. And they are also greatly increasing demand in the property and services market.


----------



## Purple (24 Aug 2017)

Given that we like in a global market for wages the only local solution to wage pressures is to reduce the cost of living. Above all else that means lower taxes and that can only be done without reducing services by a lower cost of delivery of those services by the State.   

My rent has gone up by €150 a month due solely to the increased tax and regulatory burden the State has imposed on my Landlord. If I want to buy a house a large chunk of that cost is due to levies etc imposed by the State. The State is like molasses in the arteries of the economy.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Wow... I largely agree with TheBigShort.



I'm treating myself to a pint later on foot of that comment!


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> Is the point here that low interest rates are enabling people on low incomes to consume from loans / debt? Just asking, as the rest of your post sounds right to me.



Yes, it is called credit expansion. A good idea when people are saving too much and have little debt. 
A bad idea when people cannot save and are already in debt.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> What TBS has identified is pressure on household budgets.



True, this is more accurate. But it should, invariably, lead to wage increase demands.



cremeegg said:


> Pressure on wages is when employers are feeling pressure to increase pay.



Agreed.



cremeegg said:


> That is not happening because Trade Unions are failing to do the hard work of organising outside the public sector.



Agreed.



cremeegg said:


> They would rather increase the pressure on household budgets by hitting the easy targets in the public sector.



Disagree. The trade union movement in the private sector has been slaughtered not only in Ireland, but US and UK also. 
It's not solely down to trade union incompetence, but more economic policy of individualisation, bought and sold through the never never credit expansion policy.



cremeegg said:


> It a much easier life being a union organiser for nurses or teachers than for truck drivers or fast food workers.


Perhaps, perhaps not. I do know that the trade unions would only love if private sector worker's started joining. But for many now, trade unionism is a dirty term. Like socialism in the US - couldn't even be discussed until the economy crashed and people like Sanders began to advocate for socialism


----------



## cremeegg (24 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I do know that the trade unions would only love if private sector worker's started joining.



Brilliant, absolutely the best put down of Trade Unions I have ever heard.

Trades Unions, and so many others, would only love if the world was a better place, but they are unwilling to put in the effort to build a better world. I "would only love" if customers bought my services, its a bummer to have to go out there and sell them.

Recruitment is the TU officials job, especially in the difficult sectors.


----------



## Purple (24 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I'm treating myself to a pint later on foot of that comment!


I may do the same!
Considering the volume of stuff we debate (if it can be called that) it was bound to happen eventually.


----------



## Firefly (24 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, it is called credit expansion. A good idea when people are saving too much and have little debt.
> A bad idea when people cannot save and are already in debt.



Lower interest rates do obviously make it easier for people to borrow, but they still have to sign the dotted line, but I take your point.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Brilliant, absolutely the best put down of Trade Unions I have ever heard.
> 
> Trades Unions, and so many others, would only love if the world was a better place, but they are unwilling to put in the effort to build a better world. I "would only love" if customers bought my services, its a bummer to have to go out there and sell them.
> 
> Recruitment is the TU officials job, especially in the difficult sectors.



I would disagree. Some 16% of private sector workers are in trade unions. Some 70% of public sector workers. Apparently, public sector workers have permanent pensionable, unsackable jobs - why would they need a trade union in first place?
Apparently, if you were to believe some of the posters on this site, private sector workers are faced with the gauntlet of facing the sack everyday they go to work. It's no wonder they have cowered, fear to stick their heads lest they face the gullitine. Yet, they cannot find common cause with each other, to know that solidarity has its strengths. 

I am by no means a cheerleader for trade unions. I am a member, active in recruitment (on a voluntary basis) and promoting ideals of trade unionism. But I'm not naive to think that trade unions are not without flaws. 
A good example of this is the (in)famous miners strike in the UK in the eighties. Considering where we are at now with climate change etc, Thatcher was right to shut down the mines. But she was wrong in the manner in which she went about it. She devastated mining communities, economically and socially, without little, if any, consideration as to what industries could replace the mines. Her attitude was to leave it to the 'invisible hand', to market forces to sort out. A gross and abusive misinterpretation of Adam Smiths philosophy. 
The unions were however on a losing battle, as the industry itself faced depletion. The unions would have been better to agitate for massive social and education programs for the communities to look to the future.
One good example of looking to the future was the LUAS dispute. Without going through all the detail, the infamous 50% pay claim was actually based on deferred pay rises (arising out of the uncertainty of economic downturn) dating back to 2008. The employer, it transpired, was broadly unaffected by the downturn as profits rose and productivity targets were continually met and exceeded. Not only that, the company had plans for increased recruitment as its services were to be expanded. The 50% was for pay increases over a ten year period from 2008 to 2018. In the end the settled at 18%. Or 1.8% a year for ten years. 

In summary, I don't know why private sector workers don't join unions, other than I suspect, trade unionism is perceived a dirty term in many (powerful and influential) quarters in this country. In such circumstances, it can be a hard sell.


----------



## cremeegg (24 Aug 2017)

The Luas dispute illustrated all that is worst in Trade Unions.

Luas drivers are grossly overpaid because they have a huge strike power. The TUs are happy to organise there because although not public sector workers they are in a position similar to public sector workers, they have the city at their mercy if they go on strike.

The TUs are happy to get pay rises for those who have strike power or an employer who has to attract votes, and to hell with the poor commuters who have to pay for the drivers over inflated salaries, and the tax payers who subsidise the show.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> The Luas dispute illustrated all that is worst in Trade Unions.
> 
> Luas drivers are grossly overpaid because they have a huge strike power. The TUs are happy to organise there because although not public sector workers they are in a position similar to public sector workers, they have the city at their mercy if they go on strike.
> 
> The TUs are happy to get pay rises for those who have strike power or an employer who has to attract votes, and to hell with the poor commuters who have to pay for the drivers over inflated salaries, and the tax payers who subsidise the show.



Except you are ignoring the point that the pay increases that the LUAS workers went on strike for were AGREED with their employer. Their employer won the tender for the LUAS contract, in part, because it AGREED it would it pay the drivers these amounts. It AGREED it would enter into negotiations with staff representatives every five years to discuss terms and conditions. That is how it won the lucrative contract.
But you think it's ok to renege on such agreements? The company is profitable, it is expanding, it's productivity targets are being met or exceeded. You think it's ok for it to withdraw from agreements?


----------



## cremeegg (24 Aug 2017)

I think that the Luas drivers get an excellent service from their TU. 

I am suggesting that TUs like to enrol and represent workers with strong strike power, I observe that these are often, though not always,  found in the public sector.

I think that TUs are not very motivated to organise among workers with little strike power.

I think this is why there is little upward pressure on wages in most sectors. As I said at the outset.



cremeegg said:


> Pressure on wages is when employers are feeling pressure to increase pay.
> 
> That is not happening because Trade Unions are failing to do the hard work of organising outside the public sector.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> The Luas dispute illustrated all that is worst in Trade Unions.



Why, because they provide an excellent service to their members insofar as protecting their end of the bargain as agreed?



cremeegg said:


> Luas drivers are grossly overpaid because they have a huge strike power.



The company they work for is profitable, it is expanding and it is meeting, if not exceeding, productivity targets.
The company has negotiated and AGREED with drivers the pay rates.
How have you come to the conclusion that they are grossly overpaid?
Clearly the employer doesn't think so, otherwise they would probably tear up the contract and pull out of Ireland?



cremeegg said:


> I think that the Luas drivers get an excellent service from their TU.



How do you figure that they have so much strike power anymore than workers elsewhere?


----------



## cremeegg (24 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> How do you figure that they have so much strike power anymore than workers elsewhere?



Seriously ?

Ok assuming you are being serious and you don't know.

When LUAS goes on strike tens perhaps hundreds of thousands of commuters are unable to travel. The LUAS has a grip on public transport that while it falls short of a monopoly is large enough to disrupt not only LUAS users but all other commuters as well.

This disruption is not only widespread it is also severe. People are more than inconvenienced, they are unable to get to work, school, college, shop and so on.

When Dominoes Pizza workers go on strike, people have to settle for curry.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> When LUAS goes on strike tens perhaps hundreds of thousands of commuters are unable to travel.



So if say, Ryanair pilots went on strike, wouldn't they have the same strike power?
How about taxi drivers?



cremeegg said:


> When Dominoes Pizza workers go on strike, people have to settle for curry.



True, consumers aren't really inconvenienced. But the business model, it's investors, it's brand and its future potential is. 
If I invest money in a business and the employees go on strike, am I thinking about the inconvenience (or none) to consumers or about the return on my investment?

If I subsequently agree terms with the striking pizza makers, I will do so on the basis that it is worth my while (ie a return on my investment). 
You may then consider that the pizza makers are grossly overpaid, but if consumers are buying the pizza and they are returning a profit on my investment I doubt if your opinion matters much.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Aug 2017)

Here is more news involving trade unions in the private sector

https://www.irn.ie/article/22233

If it doesn't open, it relates to 7,000 employees in retail, including traders like Pennys and m&s, agreeing to improved terms and conditions.


----------



## Purple (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> So if say, Ryanair pilots went on strike, wouldn't they have the same strike power?


 We can use Aer Lingus.


TheBigShort said:


> How about taxi drivers?


 We can use buses or other transport.





TheBigShort said:


> True, consumers aren't really inconvenienced. But the business model, it's investors, it's brand and its future potential is.
> If I invest money in a business and the employees go on strike, am I thinking about the inconvenience (or none) to consumers or about the return on my investment?


In the case of Public Sector strikes value for money and return on investment are not even considered.



TheBigShort said:


> If I subsequently agree terms with the striking pizza makers, I will do so on the basis that it is worth my while (ie a return on my investment).


 Yes, or you could refuse, close the place and then open a similar business with no union.


TheBigShort said:


> You may then consider that the pizza makers are grossly overpaid, but if consumers are buying the pizza and they are returning a profit on my investment I doubt if your opinion matters much.


 If you are paying them more than your competition and their productivity levels are the same then you will eventually go out of business.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> We can use Aer Lingus.



Being a smaller airline it's capacity to absorb Ryanair passengers will be limited. Sounds like major inconvenience to me.
But similarly, LUAS passengers can always use Dublin Bus 



Purple said:


> We can use buses or other transport.



Ditto LUAS passengers. So it was claimed that LUAS drivers have huge 'strike power' over other workers. You would appear to indicate that that is not so?



Purple said:


> In the case of Public Sector strikes value for money and return on investment are not even considered.



Trans Dev is a private company. It operates LUAS.



Purple said:


> Yes, or you could refuse, close the place and then open a similar business with no union.



Except Domino's I think is an international brand? Kind of tricky to establish a brand like that without having to dig deeper into your pockets and expect the same returns.
Also, if the new workers choose, they can join a union if they so wish.
Sounds very costly to me.



Purple said:


> If you are paying them more than your competition and their productivity levels are the same then you will eventually go out of business.



Perhaps, but who said anything about paying them more? Most likely, if pizza worker's are going on strike it would be because they understand that they are being paid less than workers in a competitive business.


----------



## Purple (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Being a smaller airline it's capacity to absorb Ryanair passengers will be limited. Sounds like major inconvenience to me.
> But similarly, LUAS passengers can always use Dublin Bus
> 
> 
> ...


True, the problem is that they are ultimately State contracts with a large element of State funding and there is a lot of (unionised) media pressure for the Government to get involved.





TheBigShort said:


> Trans Dev is a private company. It operates LUAS.


 On a State contract. They wouldn't have won the contract without accepting a unionised workforce. 





TheBigShort said:


> Except Domino's I think is an international brand? Kind of tricky to establish a brand like that without having to dig deeper into your pockets and expect the same returns.


 I'm not sure what you mean. 


TheBigShort said:


> Also, if the new workers choose, they can join a union if they so wish.
> Sounds very costly to me.


 True, but their new employer doesn't have to talk to the union. 





TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps, but who said anything about paying them more? Most likely, if pizza worker's are going on strike it would be because they understand that they are being paid less than workers in a competitive business.


 Pizza company employees don't go on strike. Most strikes are in the State sector where there are no identical jobs elsewhere. When they are benchmarked against comparable jobs they are paid more and have better overall packages... and yet they still go on strike.

To be clear; if I ran a business and was forced to negotiate with a union (and have a unionised workforce) I would sell or just close the business. Nothing is worth that stress and hassle and the strain of watching the slow death of your business.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> True, the problem is that they are ultimately State contracts with a large element of State funding and there is a lot of (unionised) media pressure for the Government to get involved.



It was alleged that LUAS workers have greater 'strike power', hence union organization with them. I would dispute this.



Purple said:


> On a State contract. They wouldn't have won the contract without accepting a unionised workforce.



That is their business. Nobody forced Transdev to take the contract. That was their choice, do you think they read the tender beforehand?
The strike came about because the company tried to circumvent agreements already made.



Purple said:


> I'm not sure what you mean



You implied that it is simply a question of closing and opening another store. This is simplistic.
Many of Ireland's fast food outlets are run by individual investors buying into international franchises. That costs money. If the business model isn't working (striking workers indicates there is a problem) then investors risk losing their money. The option to simply close and re-open is not realistic.



Purple said:


> True, but their new employer doesn't have to talk to the union.



Won't stop workers going on strike if they feel aggrieved enough.



Purple said:


> Pizza company employees don't go on strike.


http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/91779165/kfc-pizza-hut-carls-jr-starbucks-workers-go-on-strike

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...to-coordinate-strike-with-allies-around-world


----------



## Leo (25 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> When LUAS goes on strike tens perhaps hundreds of thousands of commuters are unable to travel.



Another perhaps bigger problem in the LUAS scenario is that when the drivers go on strike looking for ridiculous levels of pay, the company not only lose out on fare revenue, but also have to pay €100k a day to the state for failing to provide the contracted service.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> Another perhaps bigger problem in the LUAS scenario is that when the drivers go on strike looking for ridiculous levels of pay, the company not only lose out on fare revenue, but also have to pay €100k a day to the state for failing to provide the contracted service.



Of course that is to ignore the facts laid out earlier that the company AGREED to pay these rates of pay. That is how, in part, it won the tender. Are you suggesting that the company should be allowed renege on the terms of the deal that won it a lucrative state transport contract?
On the other hand if they did manage to get away with paying less then the company would increase its profits, meaning higher stock prices and dividends for shareholders. The majority of whom are abroad.
That is wealth leaving the country in return for lower standards of living at home.
The LUAS drivers should be applauded for keeping money, as agreed, in the country. Who knows, they might spend some in your shop!


----------



## Leo (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Of course that is to ignore the facts laid out earlier that the company AGREED to pay these rates of pay. That is how, in part, it won the tender. Are you suggesting that the company should be allowed renege on the terms of the deal that won it a lucrative state transport contract?



The double edged sword of loss of income and simultaneous fines in unfair on any company. Over 2,000 applicants for 29 driver openings suggests the jobs market believe Luas drivers were already very well paid. We're paying junior doctors half the rate Luas drivers get. If we're saying well done to Luas drivers, they got what they deserve, what happens the economy as a whole if everyone else uses that as the benchmark?



TheBigShort said:


> On the other hand if they did manage to get away with paying less then the company would increase its profits, meaning higher stock prices and dividends for shareholders. The majority of whom are abroad.



So we should turn our back on the global economy and see where we get on our own? Irish people shouldn't be allowed to own stock in non-Irish companies? Foreign investors shouldn't be allowed to invest in Irish companies?


----------



## cremeegg (25 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> So we should turn our back on the global economy and see where we get on our own? Irish people shouldn't be allowed to own stock in non-Irish companies? Foreign investors shouldn't be allowed to invest in Irish companies?



Yes and Ryanair should give back all the money it charged passengers flying between non Irish airports.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> The double edged sword of loss of income and simultaneous fines in unfair on any company.



You may think so, I may think so. The important thing is whether those that competed for the tender thought so. 
It would appear that Transdev, and other applicants, didn't not consider this to be unduly unfair.



Leo said:


> Over 2,000 applicants for 29 driver openings suggests the jobs market believe Luas drivers were already very well paid.



Yes, what is wrong with well paid workers? If the employer agrees to pay then what is the problem?



Leo said:


> We're paying junior doctors half the rate Luas drivers get. If we're saying well done to Luas drivers, they got what they deserve, what happens the economy as a whole if everyone else uses that as the benchmark?



Except junior doctors are permanent. They eventually become senior doctors. I'm sure they weigh up the pro's and con's. The pro's being vastly higher salaries than LUAS drivers in the long run.
But wait, you could be onto something. What happens the economy as a whole if everyone uses the junior to senior doctor model as a benchmark?
You are ignoring facts. The tendering process would not have stipulated the rates of pay. It would have a condition that rates of pay are at a minimum comparable with wages in the economy and in the transport sector. It was for the applicants to offer their pay rates and structures. Transdev offered the best rates.
Are you suggesting that the company should be allowed to renege on its agreements?



Leo said:


> So we should turn our back on the global economy and see where we get on our own?



No. It's free trade, but generally what's good for working people here is generally good for the Irish economy as a whole.



Leo said:


> Irish people shouldn't be allowed to own stock in non-Irish companies?



Never said that and don't agree with it. The more wealth transferred from other economies to this economy the better, in general.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Except you are ignoring the point that the pay increases that the LUAS workers went on strike for were AGREED with their employer. Their employer won the tender for the LUAS contract, in part, because it AGREED it would it pay the drivers these amounts. It AGREED it would enter into negotiations with staff representatives every five years to discuss terms and conditions. That is how it won the lucrative contract.
> But you think it's ok to renege on such agreements? The company is profitable, it is expanding, it's productivity targets are being met or exceeded. You think it's ok for it to withdraw from agreements?



I would thought these were straight forward questions to answer.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Except junior doctors are permanent. They eventually become senior doctors. I'm sure they weigh up the pro's and con's. The pro's being vastly higher salaries than LUAS drivers in the long run.



Like so many on the left you are firmly stuck in a 1950s mind set. Joe Higgins with his, "objects of beauty made by the unionised workers of Waterford Crystal in every Irish household", is an image that will stay with me for ever.

While certainly all consultants in the Public sector earn extremely high salaries, many with obscenely beneficial terms and conditions, and many consultants in the private sector earn very high incomes, not all junior doctors progress to the consultant ranks.

Many middle aged doctors earn LUAS driver levels of income.

As an aside i would apologise for dragging this thread off track, if I knew where the track was.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> As an aside i would apologise for dragging this thread off track, if I knew where the track was



A private company offers specific terms and conditions in a competitive tender process. It tries to renege on those terms despite increasing profits and productivity measures.
Do you think it is ok to renege on what it agreed, in order to win the lucrative state contract?
That was the track we were on.


----------



## Firefly (25 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> As an aside i would apologise for dragging this thread off track, if I knew where the track was.





TheBigShort said:


> That was the track we were on.



Seems right for a discussion about the LUAS in any case!


----------



## cremeegg (25 Aug 2017)

I really dont think that anybody except your self was on the track of the details of the LUAS dispute.

We were on workers not wanting a job, underemployment and wage pressures.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Aug 2017)

Now who put us there.



TheBigShort said:


> It's a catchy headline for sure but doesn't really say much. I might not want a job, but it doesn't stop me getting up in the morning to do a job.
> 
> The real issue is the lag between the official unemployment rate and the reality that that figure is made up of a lot of part-time workers who would actually like to see their hours increased. Hence, the claim, no inflationary pressure on wages.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> really dont think that anybody except your self was on the track of the details of the LUAS dispute.
> 
> We were on workers not wanting a job, underemployment and wage pressures.



Really, who brought up trade unions on the first place?



cremeegg said:


> What TBS has identified is pressure on household budgets.
> 
> Pressure on wages is when employers are feeling pressure to increase pay.
> 
> ...



You brought trade unions into it. I disagreed with your point. But I went on to give examples of good and bad trade union activism.
You disagreed with my example of good trade union activism



cremeegg said:


> The Luas dispute illustrated all that is worst in Trade Unions.
> 
> Luas drivers are grossly overpaid because they have a huge strike power



I'm asking, relative to your comment that LUAS workers are grossly overpaid, do you think it's ok that the employer renege on what it agreed to pay?
Relative to your comment that LUAS workers have huge strike power compared to pizza worker's, I disagree again. I have given examples of fast food pizza worker's fighting their corner by going on strike.
If you don't want to continue the discussion on this track, which you largely contributed to, just say so.


----------



## Purple (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> but generally what's good for working people here is generally good for the Irish economy as a whole.


 Really? High wages lead to high costs. High costs lead to a loss in competitiveness. The only way wealth is created is through increased productivity. Anything other than that is just moving wealth around. We have a small open economy which seeks to attract wealth in. If we are to do that through means other than tax harvesting we have to be more competitive than the next guy. That doesn't mean low wages, it means wages which are linked to productivity. In other words nobody should ever get a pay rise just for being employed for an extra year.


----------



## Purple (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> But I went on to give examples of good and bad trade union activism.


 I missed it where you pointed out bad trade union activism. Can you point me to it please?

You keep saying that Transdev have a very lucrative contract. How do you know it's very lucrative?


----------



## cremeegg (25 Aug 2017)

Responding to TBS post 39

Ok lets see if we can make any progress.

I think LUAS drivers have huge strike power, you don't. I am happy to say we don't agree and move on from that one.

You ask if its ok for the LUAS employer to renege on what it agreed to pay. I certainly think that people should keep to their agreements, however I have no idea if that is a fair characterisation of the LUAS dispute. And for myself I don't really feel the need to know. I don't think it contributes anything to the discussion either way.

On the question of fast food workers, I think that they have very little strike power, that they are unable to exert much pressure on wages, I blame this at least partly on TUs being uninterested in organising them. This seems to me central to the discussion and I am not really clear on your idea here.

Now i really must get some work done, or i will be the one feeling some pressure, but i look forward to coming back to this later.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Really? High wages lead to high costs.



Yes, so what? That is not what my comment inferred. What is good for working people here, is generally good for the economy as a whole.
Food supplies, affordable rents and housing, clean water, jobs, etc etc. I said nothing about high wages.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> I missed it where you pointed out bad trade union activism. Can you point me to it please?



I mentioned miners strike in UK in the eighties. A losing battle from the start for an industry that was being depleted.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> I certainly think that people should keep to their agreements, however I have no idea if that is a fair characterisation of the LUAS dispute. And for myself I don't really feel the need to know. I don't think it contributes anything to the discussion either way.



Seriously? You have some neck to label them grossly overpaid then. Find out the facts for yourself, otherwise your comments are lazy and ignorant to say the least.
All this spouting on this site about free markets, and market value etc is all empty rhetoric. Why not argue that Transdev simply did a bad deal and consumers are paying the price in higher LUAS fares?



cremeegg said:


> On the question of fast food workers, I think that they have very little strike power, that they are unable to exert much pressure on wages, I blame this at least partly on TUs being uninterested in organising them. This seems to me central to the discussion and I am not really clear on your idea here.



They have little strike power in Ireland, yes in part to incompetence on part of trade unions here, partly because the term trade unionism is a dirty term in some powerful and influential quarters.


----------



## Leo (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Never said that and don't agree with it. The more wealth transferred from other economies to this economy the better, in general.



Yet when the same occurs in the opposite direction it's wealth leaving the country and lowering standards


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> Yet when the same occurs in the opposite direction it's wealth leaving the country and lowering standards



Yes, is that hard to understand?


----------



## Leo (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, is that hard to understand?



You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Purple (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, so what? That is not what my comment inferred. What is good for working people here, is generally good for the economy as a whole.
> Food supplies, affordable rents and housing, clean water, jobs, etc etc. I said nothing about high wages.


Okay, so wage levels that damage the economy are a bad thing. Do you agree?

If businesses and employers should honour their agreements should the same thing also apply to employees and Unions?


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> You can't have it both ways




If I pay €50 in wages and make €50 profit for myself. The wages will typically get spent in this economy. If I'm based in UK, profits will typically get spent there.
If renege on pay deal and only pay €40 I get to spend €60 in UK.
If workers resist this the €50 wages return, to be spent in this economy.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Okay, so wage levels that damage the economy are a bad thing. Do you agree?



Of course. Do you think pizza worker's don't strike?



Purple said:


> If businesses and employers should honour their agreements should the same thing also apply to employees and Unions?



Of course. Do you think pizza worker's don't strike?


----------



## Leo (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> If I pay €50 in wages and make €50 profit for myself. The wages will typically get spent in this economy. If I'm based in UK, profits will typically get spent there.
> If renege on pay deal and only pay €40 I get to spend €60 in UK.
> If workers resist this the €50 wages return, to be spent in this economy.



So they buy only Irish products and services? They don't go on foreign holidays? That money being repatriated to the UK, none of it gets spent on Irish exports? And for balance you want to encourage Irish investors in foreign businesses to ensure the same happens there and they minimise the money they bring back to the Irish economy? 

Excessive pay for Luas drivers and the like will only speed up their replacement with automation.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> So they buy only Irish products and services? They don't go on foreign holidays? That money being repatriated to the UK, none of it gets spent on Irish exports? And for balance you want to encourage Irish investors in foreign businesses to ensure the same happens there and they minimise the money they bring back to the Irish economy?
> 
> Excessive pay for Luas drivers and the like will only speed up their replacement with automation.



Ah c'mon, do I have to go down to the micro level here? Of course it is spent on foreign holidays, foreign goods etc but it is also spent on local goods and services. How much of profits generated here gone abroad returns to ireland compared with wages earned and spent here?


----------



## Purple (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Of course. Do you think pizza worker's don't strike?


Good, so you agree that high wages can damage the economy or, more specifically, wage levels or wage increases which are not tied to an increase in productivity. Is that correct?
You do know that an organisation which pays wage levels in excess of the market rate but is no more productive than the average market rate is not productive, right?
You also know, I presume, that organisations in which their labour is less productive than the market average but pay the average market rates are also not productive?

This all comes down to costs within the economy. If the State sends more money than it should in one area then there is less money to spend where it is needed in another area. The socialist solution is to take more money from the productive wealth generating sectors of the economy. I'd rather see the waste reduced instead or perpetuating that cycle. 

Now, when was the last time you saw a picket on an Irish Pizza restaurant?


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Good, so you agree that high wages can damage the economy or, more specifically, wage levels or wage increases which are not tied to an increase in productivity. Is that correct?
> You do know that an organisation which pays wage levels in excess of the market rate but is no more productive than the average market rate is not productive, right?
> You also know, I presume, that organisations in which their labour is less productive than the market average but pay the average market rates are also not productive?
> 
> This all comes down to costs within the economy. If the State sends more money than it should in one area then there is less money to spend where it is needed in another area. The socialist solution is to take more money from the productive wealth generating sectors of the economy. I'd rather see the waste reduced instead or perpetuating that cycle.



What has any of this got to do with Transdev paying its drivers what was agreed?




Purple said:


> Now, when was the last time you saw a picket on an Irish Pizza restaurant?



Oh, it's Irish pizza worker's that don't strike...silly me. There I was thinking you attuned to the globalised economy. Amazing how you can revert locally when it suits. But to answer your question (you might answer mine then?)
http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/porn-row-pizza-workers-strike-28496689.html

Do pizza worker's not go on strike?


----------



## Purple (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> What has any of this got to do with Transdev paying its drivers what was agreed?


 Does that mean you won't answer the questions?



TheBigShort said:


> Oh, it's Irish pizza worker's that don't strike...silly me. There I was thinking you attuned to the globalised economy. Amazing how you can revert locally when it suits. But to answer your question (you might answer mine then?)
> http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/porn-row-pizza-workers-strike-28496689.html
> 
> Do pizza worker's not go on strike?


I can't open your link but it looks like it's from the UK. When was the last time you saw a picket at an Irish Pizza restaurant?

People in the small businesses in the open economy are less likely to join a Union because they know that the Union will agitate for low productivity and restrictive work practices and ultimately cost them their jobs.


----------



## Firefly (25 Aug 2017)

I starting to find all this talk of unions a little bit antiquated to be honest and pretty soon (as mentioned) it will be consigned to the public sector and "old world" organisations. The largest accommodation company (Airbnb) doesn't own any hotels, the largest taxi company (Uber) doesn't own any cabs. Everything that can be is being moved online with 3rd party companies employing more and more agency staff in locations around the world. Last week my daughter asked me for the next Harry Potter book in the series that she is reading. Within seconds my order was placed with Amazon....this will no doubt rely on a whole chain of part-time agency staff to fulfill from the people (or robots) that pack the book to the lorry drivers that make the delivery. There may be an incentive for the lorry drivers to form a union however as they are probably hired via an agency, Amazon could just as easily hire another agency. A friend has launched an online business last year and is poised to break through the 1m mark in revenue before the end of the year. He has not earned a single euro in Ireland and employs free lance developers in Poland & Asia and has someone for sales based in the US..all on contract.

The point being, more & more tasks are being out-sourced and automated. Productivity and price will determine where the jobs will be located. Unfortunately, less and less people will be required with the advent of the internet, AI, robotics and automation. Rather than getting caught up in 20th century thinking we should be planning for the next 50 years...


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Does that mean you won't answer the questions?



I will, after you have answered mine. This relates to the strike at the Green Isle plant in Kildare, where the workers make pizzas.

http://m.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/deal-sees-workers-end-hunger-strike-26637593.html

Do pizza worker's not go on strike?




Purple said:


> I can't open your link but it looks like it's from the UK. When was the last time you saw a picket at an Irish Pizza restaurant?



Ireland actually. See above.



Purple said:


> People in the small businesses in the open economy are less likely to join a Union because they know that the Union will agitate for low productivity and restrictive work practices and ultimately cost them their jobs.



Some people clearly think that way. Others would disagree. I would be one of them.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> The point being, more & more tasks are being out-sourced and automated. Productivity and price will determine where the jobs will be located. Unfortunately, less and less people will be required with the advent of the internet, AI, robotics and automation. Rather than getting caught up in 20th century thinking we should be planning for the next 50 years...



You make some reasonable points. But the one point that is missing, in my opinion, is if the robot technology age is upon us, then there will be mass displacement of employment. If there is mass unemployment, who is going to buy the goods and services that the robots make?
On the other hand, if robots takeover, then presumably they won't need a wage? Labour can be removed as a factor of production as nearly everything will be free?
But if everything is free, who decides who gets to live in a mansion with a flash car and who does not? Or can we all expect to live rich style lifestyles? Why not, if robots do everything for us?


----------



## Firefly (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> You make some reasonable points. But the one point that is missing, in my opinion, is if the robot technology age is upon us, then there will be mass displacement of employment. If there is mass unemployment, who is going to buy the goods and services that the robots make?
> On the other hand, if robots takeover, then presumably they won't need a wage? Labour can be removed as a factor of production as nearly everything will be free?
> But if everything is free, who decides who gets to live in a mansion with a flash car and who does not? Or can we all expect to live rich style lifestyles? Why not, if robots do everything for us?



And good questions and points from you  I don't honestly know, but goods seem to get cheaper and cheaper and delivered faster and faster. I don't know where it will all end. I bought garden hedging from Amazon a few months ago - came all perfectly wrapped for a fraction of the price.

The optimist in me says there will be interesting work in other areas, however the pessimist in me says there will be mass unemployment. One thing's for certain though, for a lot of people, being protected by a union could well be a lot further from their minds than a day's work...

Anyways, it's the weekend and I have a BBQ to get to!


----------



## cremeegg (25 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> You have some neck....your comments are lazy and ignorant to say the least.



Really ? Is that really where you are at. I will assume it was a momentary aberration and move on.

To respond to your substantive point. In my opinion LUAS drivers are grossly overpaid, and it makes no difference whether this is due to the terms of Transdev's franchise or LUAS drivers strike power. Either way in my opinion LUAS drivers have huge strike power, you seem to disagree.


As you said in relation to another post.



TheBigShort said:


> Ah c'mon, do I have to go down to the micro level here?


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Really ? Is that really where you are at. I will assume it was a momentary aberration and move on.



I apologise, my comments were too harsh and personalized. I sometimes forget that this is just a comments forum.

I do get infuriated however at what I perceive is lazy commentary on trade unions. As a trade unionist, I accept that it is littered with flaws. But I also understand that it has achieved a great many things. Without trade unions, agitating, it is unlikely that we would have 8 hrs working days, five days a week, minimum wage, annual leave, public holidays, overtime rates, unfair dismissal legislation, employment rights, equality legislation etc, etc.
The case of LUAS is there to be studied if anyone cares to do so. Labeling the drivers as 'grossly overpaid' and laying the blame at the door at trade unions is folly.
 The employer offered the pay rates as part of its submission to win the tender. It offered pay scale reviews every five years as part of its submission to win the tender.
In 2006 prior to the economic crisis, and after the said pay review, pay increases were agreed until the next pay review.
Bring on the economic crisis and all changed. Such was the uncertainty, management inferred pay cuts and redundancies if unions pushed for the implementation of the agreed pay rises.
SIPTU, representing the workers, brokered a deal with management. A deferral of the agreed pay rises in return for a commitment not to cut pay or pursue redundancies. Each side held a condition  - the right to review. If economic conditions adversely impacted on profits and productivity, management would seek pay cuts and redundancies.
If profits and productivity were not adversely affected, unions would seek the implementation of agreed pay rises.
The result, the LUAS works continued to increase passenger numbers, increase revenue, increase expansion plans.
The (in)famous 50% pay increase was related to two five-year pay reviews. 5% a year, a negotiating position with a company that was growing and expanding during the worst economic downturn ever.
They settled at 1.8% a year for 10yrs.

To argue that the drivers are overpaid, the unions are at fault, and to admit not knowing the details of the dispute nor needing to know!...I'll let you describe what type of commentary that is.


----------



## cremeegg (26 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Without trade unions, agitating, it is unlikely that we would have 8 hrs working days, five days a week, minimum wage, annual leave, public holidays, overtime rates, unfair dismissal legislation, employment rights, equality legislation etc, etc.



I agree, but I would add that it is all past tense.



TheBigShort said:


> Labelling the drivers as 'grossly overpaid'



The get roughly one and a third times the average wage, for a very basic job, I will dig out the video if you like.



TheBigShort said:


> and laying the blame at the door at trade unions is folly.



No blame to the unions. the drivers representatives have done an excellent job for their members.




TheBigShort said:


> The employer offered the pay rates as part of its submission to win the tender. It offered pay scale reviews every five years as part of its submission to win the tender.
> In 2006 prior to the economic crisis, and after the said pay review, pay increases were agreed until the next pay review.
> Bring on the economic crisis and all changed. Such was the uncertainty, management inferred pay cuts and redundancies if unions pushed for the implementation of the agreed pay rises.
> SIPTU, representing the workers, brokered a deal with management. A deferral of the agreed pay rises in return for a commitment not to cut pay or pursue redundancies. Each side held a condition  - the right to review. If economic conditions adversely impacted on profits and productivity, management would seek pay cuts and redundancies.
> ...



I am obviously not as familiar with the details as you are, so I accept that this is a fair representation of the events, but what point does that all make.

It certainly says nothing to my contention that the lack of wage pressure in the economy is in part due to the inactivity of the TUs, especially in the casual work sector.


----------



## TheBigShort (26 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> I agree, but I would add that it is all past tense.



??? The legislation that exists in these areas continues to exist today. There are people out there who would row back on these protections if they could. The stronger the trade union movement the less likely for it to happen. Weaker trade union movement, more likely to happen.



scremeegg said:


> The get roughly one and a third times the average wage, for a very basic job, I will dig out the video if you like.



I know the job is not technical. But it is a critical part of the transport network in Dublin which brings tens of thousands of other workers to their place of employment.
For sure, someone on minimum wage could do the job. But someone on minimum wage may not turn up much Monday morning, or do the night shift, or weekends, or public holidays.
To illustrate the point, we looked for a childminder for the school term offering€9.50ph. We scheduled an interview with a young woman but she didn't turn up. We called her and she said 'something had come up'. We bumped into her later that day on the beach! That's unreliable.
If you pay minimum wage or close to it, expect unreliability and disruption. Is that how the Capital city transport network should operate?
You need people who are reliable and punctual, with working experience and who can manage themselves. These type of people have their own responsibilities, mortgages, rent, bills, childcare etc.
You are not going to get these workers for low minimum wage, in the capital city, without getting a disruptive service to go with it.



cremeegg said:


> No blame to the unions. the drivers representatives have done an excellent job for their members.





cremeegg said:


> The Luas dispute illustrated all that is worst in Trade Unions.



I must have misconstrued this comment so.



cremeegg said:


> It certainly says nothing to my contention that the lack of wage pressure in the economy is in part due to the inactivity of the TUs, especially in the casual work sector.



To which I agreed, partially. Certainly more can and should be done. But I would consider that anti-trade union forces to be a bigger factor.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I will, after you have answered mine. This relates to the strike at the Green Isle plant in Kildare, where the workers make pizzas.
> 
> http://m.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/deal-sees-workers-end-hunger-strike-26637593.html
> 
> Do pizza worker's not go on strike?


You are really reaching there! 
If someone works in a bus manufacturing plant does that make them a bus driver?





TheBigShort said:


> Some people clearly think that way. Others would disagree. I would be one of them.


 Fair enough. The Trade Union movement has achieved many good things over the years. I am proud of the significant part my family played in the foundation of the Trade Union movement in Ireland. In my opinion they have betrayed the people they were set up to support and are now a protectionist group protecting middle class earners from the poor. It was meant to be an international movement but it agitates to keep the poor stuck in their cycle of poverty by protecting it's members from competition. They are worse than the corporations who exploit the poor. 



TheBigShort said:


> But the one point that is missing, in my opinion, is if the robot technology age is upon us, then there will be mass displacement of employment.


 Therefore mobility of labour is critical to our future and those who will not change will be unemployable. Nothing restricts labour mobility like a Trade Union. 



TheBigShort said:


> But if everything is free, who decides who gets to live in a mansion with a flash car and who does not? Or can we all expect to live rich style lifestyles? Why not, if robots do everything for us?


 Have you ever read an Iain M Banks book? 



TheBigShort said:


> If you pay minimum wage or close to it, expect unreliability and disruption. Is that how the Capital city transport network should operate?


 Are you suggesting that people in the minimum wage are lazy and unreliable?!


----------



## cremeegg (28 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> In my opinion they (Trade Unions) have betrayed the people they were set up to support and are now a protectionist group protecting middle class earners from the poor.



Nail on the head.



Purple said:


> It was meant to be an international movement but it agitates to keep the poor stuck in their cycle of poverty by protecting it's members from competition.



Exactly, and campaigns against imports from less developed countries thus denying them the opportunity to develop.



Purple said:


> mobility of labour is critical to our future and those who will not change will be unemployable. Nothing restricts labour mobility like a Trade Union.



Trade Unions may be essential to prevent exploitation, but in the medium term Trade Unions with too much power impoverish  everybody.


----------



## Leo (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> You make some reasonable points. But the one point that is missing, in my opinion, is if the robot technology age is upon us, then there will be mass displacement of employment. If there is mass unemployment, who is going to buy the goods and services that the robots make?



Ah, the Luddite Fallacy. As with previous leaps in automation, there won't be mass unemployment, just an evolution of what work is and the nature of jobs available. 

The biggest challenge is likely to be a shrinking middle class with associated fewer opportunities for upward social migration, and the importance of education in obtaining well paid employment.


----------



## Firefly (28 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> The biggest challenge is likely to be a shrinking middle class with associated fewer opportunities for upward social migration, and the importance of education in obtaining well paid employment.



I think the quality and relevance of education is going to be key.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> Ah, the Luddite Fallacy. As with previous leaps in automation, there won't be mass unemployment, just an evolution of what work is and the nature of jobs available.
> 
> The biggest challenge is likely to be a shrinking middle class with associated fewer opportunities for upward social migration, and the importance of education in obtaining well paid employment.


The longer inevitable change is resisted the harder and more painful and damaging it is to finally make that change.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> You are really reaching there!
> If someone works in a bus manufacturing plant does that make them a bus driver?



No, but if someone works in a pizza making factory, making pizzas, to my mind that makes them a pizza maker.




Purple said:


> Fair enough. The Trade Union movement has achieved many good things over the years.



Yes, like helping to resolve the dispute at the pizza making factory for the pizza makers who were on strike.



Purple said:


> In my opinion they have betrayed the people they were set up to support and are now a protectionist group protecting middle class earners from the poor



That is a broadstroke generalised view. I agree the unions have many flaws, but they can only stand up for those who are prepared to unite together. The free-loaders who benefit from any improvement in their working conditions while their colleagues pay their subscriptions week in, week out, year in, year out, are the biggest betrayers of all.



Purple said:


> It was meant to be an international movement but it agitates to keep the poor stuck in their cycle of poverty by protecting it's members from competition.



It still is an international movement. It doesn't agitate to keep poor stuck in cycle of poverty. How does protect its members from competition? This came in my inbox today

Labourstart.org.





Purple said:


> The longer inevitable change is resisted the harder and more painful and damaging it is to finally make that change.



Depends if the change is for the better or not. Closing mining plants in the UK was ultimately for the better.
Trying getting new recruits to the LUAS starting off on lower pay rates than their colleagues is not for the better.[/QUOTE]


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> Ah, the Luddite Fallacy. As with previous leaps in automation, there won't be mass unemployment, just an evolution of what work is and the nature of jobs available.
> 
> The biggest challenge is likely to be a shrinking middle class with associated fewer opportunities for upward social migration, and the importance of education in obtaining well paid employment.



I agree, long-term, that is true. In the short-term there will be disruption. If that disruption is not managed effectively, then mass unemployment (for a period) could be a reality.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> You are really reaching there!
> If someone works in a bus manufacturing plant does that make them a bus driver?
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that people in the minimum wage are lazy and unreliable?!



Not at all. The disruption, if you pay only minimum wage, comes from the fact that it is easier for the employee to change from one employment to another. Thus having an increasing staff turnover rate may lead to a disruption of services, this makes the service unreliable.
An employer I know, who runs a fast food restaurant says the only people who will work late nights for minimum wage are young people and students. The problem is, they are forever wanting to swap shifts, turning in late, not turning up at all, there is always a party to go to etc...etc... These workers are studying for better qualifications, they will move on when it suits and the turnover rate is high.
This is disruptive, this is unreliable. 
Do you think a critical component of the capital city's transport network should operate like so? I don't. What keeps the LUAS operating efficiently is that value is placed on the workers through their wages. It's what keeps them coming in on time, consistently.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Nail on the head.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you should read that again? Essential to prevent exploitation, but simultaneously impoverishing everybody!
Can you highlight a campaign against imports from less developed countries please?


----------



## Leo (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I agree, long-term, that is true. In the short-term there will be disruption. If that disruption is not managed effectively, then mass unemployment (for a period) could be a reality.



Factors like regulatory hurdles and significant costs for early adopters will ensure the disruption won't happen overnight just like it took many years for tractors to become widespread in farming. There's already a lot of material published on the job types that are likely to hit hardest and those that are deemed safest, and no doubt there will be many new jobs that most of us wouldn't even consider today. How many of us would have predicted that vloggers could be earning in the tens of millions, or that the eSports industry revenues would be hitting $750M this year (and top gamers are earning into the millions).


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Can you highlight a campaign against imports from less developed countries please?


Their talk of "a race to the bottom" and lamenting outsourcing to lower cost countries.
It wasn't so long ago that we were the lower cost country which the jobs were being outsourced to.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Essential to prevent exploitation, but simultaneously impoverishing everybody!


 How does fair trade impoverish everyone? Since we started trading openly with the Far East hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty with little impact on us.
Do you think people who don't look at the same as us shouldn't have the same opportunities as us?
I don't want to be well off at the expense of trapping someone else in a cycle of poverty.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> That is a broadstroke generalised view. I agree the unions have many flaws, but they can only stand up for those who are prepared to unite together. The free-loaders who benefit from any improvement in their working conditions while their colleagues pay their subscriptions week in, week out, year in, year out, are the biggest betrayers of all.


 I presume you don't include small farmers in sub-Saharan Africa in the freeloader group.


TheBigShort said:


> It still is an international movement. It doesn't agitate to keep poor stuck in cycle of poverty.


It works against open markets and labour flexibility. In doing so it agitates to keep poor stuck in cycle of poverty.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> *Not at all*. The disruption, if you pay only minimum wage, comes from the fact that it is easier for the employee to change from one employment to another. Thus having an increasing staff turnover rate may lead to a disruption of services, this makes the service unreliable.
> An employer I know, who runs a fast food restaurant says the only people who will work late nights for minimum wage are young people and students. *The problem is, they are forever wanting to swap shifts, turning in late, not turning up at all, there is always a party to go to etc...etc...*


 Which is it?


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Their talk of "a race to the bottom" and lamenting outsourcing to lower cost countries.
> It wasn't so long ago that we were the lower cost country which the jobs were being outsourced to.



That doesn't make any sense. Is there any body or group that actually advocates a race to the bottom? As for "lamenting" outsourcing to lower cost countries? Does nobody else "lament" the outsourcing of jobs?
When Dell decided to move to Poland, who cheered? What did the unions do that was so regressive? Other than call for protection of redundancies for the employees. Or when Clerys closed down and workers were left hanging. What did unions do other than campaign for, and get, a settlement for each of the workers?


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> I presume you don't include small farmers in sub-Saharan Africa in the freeloader group.



Oh great, you have gone globalist again. Did you know that pizza workers in the US and UK have gone on strike?



Purple said:


> It works against open markets and labour flexibility. In doing so it agitates to keep poor stuck in cycle of poverty.



No it doesn't, you are making this stuff up.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> That doesn't make any sense. Is there any body or group that actually advocates a race to the bottom? As for "lamenting" outsourcing to lower cost countries? Does nobody else "lament" the outsourcing of jobs?


The term "race to the bottom" is a misnomer. It is really opposing those who have nothing getting the same chances and opportunities we have. 
I don't lament the outsourcing of jobs. It is part of the evolution of our economy. It is better to gradually change over years than have that change forced upon us like a tsunami.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Which is it?



If I want to build a business around minimum wage workers I can expect that business to provide an unreliable service. Not because the workers themselves are unreliable ( if I hire 18yr undergraduates of computer science to flip burgers on a Saturday night I should be prepared to accept a high staff turnover, shift swapping, etc. Not because they themselves are lazy or unreliable but because my business model is built around minimum wage) but because my business model is set up to have high staff turnover etc. This is an unreliable business model, this is disruptive.
Do you think the capital city's transport network should be modelled in this way, considering how easy it is to operate a tram?


----------



## Firefly (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> If I want to build a business around minimum wage workers I can expect that business to provide an unreliable service. Not because the workers themselves are unreliable ( if I hire 18yr undergraduates of computer science to flip burgers on a Saturday night I should be prepared to accept a high staff turnover, shift swapping, etc. Not because they themselves are lazy or unreliable but because my business model is built around minimum wage) but because my business model is set up to have high staff turnover etc. This is an unreliable business model, this is disruptive.



If the "solution" is to pay people more than the minimum wage, can you see how this drives up wages?


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Oh great, you have gone globalist again. Did you know that pizza workers in the US and UK have gone on strike?


That remind me, you still haven't answered this; 


Purple said:


> Good, so you agree that high wages can damage the economy or, more specifically, wage levels or wage increases which are not tied to an increase in productivity. Is that correct?
> You do know that an organisation which pays wage levels in excess of the market rate but is no more productive than the average market rate is not productive, right?
> You also know, I presume, that organisations in which their labour is less productive than the market average but pay the average market rates are also not productive?
> 
> This all comes down to costs within the economy. If the State sends more money than it should in one area then there is less money to spend where it is needed in another area. The socialist solution is to take more money from the productive wealth generating sectors of the economy. I'd rather see the waste reduced instead or perpetuating that cycle.








TheBigShort said:


> No it doesn't, you are making this stuff up.


 Okay, so they don't look for subsidies and protectionist tariffs? Is that right?


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Do you think the capital city's transport network should be modelled in this way, considering how easy it is to operate a tram?


 No, I would like to see no drivers at all. They are completely unnecessary.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> The term "race to the bottom" is a misnomer. It is really opposing those who have nothing getting the same chances and opportunities we have.



No it is not. It is a term that exposes the devaluation of the chances and opportunities we have. It means that rather having an economic model that builds on and spreads prosperity, we instead have an economic model that will mean future generations will be worse off than we are. And if you don't believe me, just take a look at this website and all the complaining some people do about how much tax they pay, and how it isn't worthwhile anymore to earn €125,000 if you only get €75,000 into your hand.



Purple said:


> I don't lament the outsourcing of jobs. It is part of the evolution of our economy. It is better to gradually change over years than have that change forced upon us like a tsunami.



I didn't ask that. I asked if other bodies of groupings express regret when jobs are lost? The Government? Local community organisations? Other employers reliant on the trade? Business groupings like ISME, IBEC etc? Do none of these groupings ever "lament" the loss of jobs?


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> No, I would like to see no drivers at all. They are completely unnecessary



That's a classic. Motionless trams!


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> No it is not. It is a term that exposes the devaluation of the chances and opportunities we have. It means that rather having an economic model that builds on and spreads prosperity, we instead have an economic model that will mean future generations will be worse off than we are.


 Instead of having an economic model which spreads prosperity the Trade Unions and other interest groups seek to maintain restrictive trade practices which means that the poorest in the world can't sell their products at a fair market price.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> If the "solution" is to pay people more than the minimum wage, can you see how this drives up wages?



No it doesn't. Because if you provide a reliable efficient service, as opposed to an unreliable, inefficient service, then productivity increases. And in the case of LUAS they are exceeding their productivity targets. Which means, tens of thousands of other workers are arriving at their place of work in a timely and efficient manner. Which means a city like Dublin becomes an attractive place to invest. Which means jobs, well paid jobs, which means more income circulating in the economy than what would have been if we choose to have a crappy, unreliable transport service, in which case even the minimum wage will look expensive in the long-run.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> That's a classic. Motionless trams!



Look up driverless Trains, driverless Trams and Driverless Buses. They'll be here soon!
I'm sure your mates will want the drivers kept on to do bugger all, just like the Dublin Bus drivers on the routes which are being outsourced.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Instead of having an economic model which spreads prosperity the Trade Unions and other interest groups seek to maintain restrictive trade practices which means that the poorest in the world can't sell their products at a fair market price.



This is nonsense. Give me an example please.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Look up driverless Trains, driverless Trams and Driverless Buses. They'll be here soon!



What time is the next one due? There is a queue of people on Abbey St waiting to get home.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> This is nonsense. Give me an example please.


I'm sure you are familiar with the Insider-Outsider theory of employment. 
Apply that globally rather than nationally.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> What time is the next one due? There is a queue of people on Abbey St waiting to get home.


Good man; you made a funny!

 The queues will be shorter when they trams are driverless.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> When Dell decided to move to Poland, who cheered?



Polish mammies, who saw their children getting jobs at home instead of having to emigrate.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Polish mammies, who saw their children getting jobs at home instead of having to emigrate.



And Purple.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Aug 2017)

If Polish workers had a comparative advantage in producing the Dell computers more cheaply then there was a net benefit to the world.

From my understanding of the Dell Limerick case, which no doubt is lazy and uninformed by comparison with your own, the Dell operation in Limerick was extremely well run and kept the work there longer than the economic fundamentals would indicate.

Of course the question is why did Polish workers have a comparative advantage. Is it because wages for computer assembles workers in Limerick are higher than Lodz. They need to be because transport workers, (and teachers, and nurses, and doctors everyone else in the protected sectors ) in Limerick earn massively more than in Lodz. So the assembly workers, working in an internationally trader sector, need to earn enough to support the protected sectors.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> I'm sure you are familiar with the Insider-Outsider theory of employment.
> Apply that globally rather than nationally.



Yeah, familiar somewhat. I don't give it much store as I've never understood what it proposes to do to resolve the issues it highlights other than to make all employees to the status of outsiders.
We can't all be insiders, so the only obvious status the theory aspires is to make everyone as outsiders.
NotwithStanding the issues of a 'closed shop', reducing everyone to the level of outsider is a recipe for social unrest.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> If Polish workers had a comparative advantage in producing the Dell computers more cheaply then there was a net benefit to the world.
> 
> From my understanding of the Dell Limerick case, which no doubt is lazy and uninformed by comparison with your own, the Dell operation in Limerick was extremely well run and kept the work there longer than the economic fundamentals would indicate.
> 
> Of course the question is why did Polish workers have a comparative advantage. Is it because wages for computer assembles workers in Limerick are higher than Lodz. They need to be because transport workers, (and teachers, and nurses, and doctors everyone else in the protected sectors ) in Limerick earn massively more than in Lodz. So the assembly workers, working in an internationally trader sector, need to earn enough to support the protected sectors.



Yes all very good. But the point was made that trade unions trying to resist this type of outsourcing is a bad thing. 
This is nonsense. ISME, IBEC, CIF, HIF, etc etc are equally as likely to lobby political reps to resist the outsourcing of jobs from Ireland.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Aug 2017)

Protectionism is a bad think no matter who is doing it, even HIF.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Protectionism is a bad think no matter who is doing it, even HIF.



But I don't see or hear those organizations being lambasted the same way as trade unions are.
Insofar as 'protectionism' is concerned, all those organizations are set up to protect their members interests over the interests of all others. Only through negotiation can common ground can solutions be found.
This is a common feature through out the political and business world and is by no means unique to Ireland.


----------



## Purple (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Yeah, familiar somewhat. I don't give it much store as I've never understood what it proposes to do to resolve the issues it highlights other than to make all employees to the status of outsiders.
> We can't all be insiders, so the only obvious status the theory aspires is to make everyone as outsiders.
> NotwithStanding the issues of a 'closed shop', reducing everyone to the level of outsider is a recipe for social unrest.


 We can seek to create a society where there are no insiders or outsiders. We certainly shouldn't make a virtue of it.



TheBigShort said:


> ISME, IBEC, CIF, HIF, etc etc are equally as likely to lobby political reps to resist the outsourcing of jobs from Ireland.


 Agreed. They are all just vested interest groups which place the wants and needs of their members above those of society at large. The difference between the ones you have listed and Unions is that only Unions pretend they are something else.



TheBigShort said:


> Insofar as 'protectionism' is concerned, all those organizations are set up to protect their members interests over the interests of all others. Only through negotiation can common ground can solutions be found.
> This is a common feature through out the political and business world and is by no means unique to Ireland.


 The common good is lost in that search for common ground. It turns into the insiders negotiating on how to divide up the cake. When I think about the latter versions of what started as national wage agreements I visualise the last pages of Animal Farm.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> We can seek to create a society where there are no insiders or outsiders.



Yes we can. The insiders outsider theory fails in that regard. In fact, from what I can deduce it advocates for some form of a return to serfdom where only a select few would be privileged.



Purple said:


> They are all just vested interest groups which place the wants and needs of their members above those of society at large



The list above is not exhaustive, it extends to political, religious, sporting and charitable organizations. All with their lobbyists, some with vested interests in more than one category.
This is society at large. 
It's certainly not perfect, but if you have a better way of organising it, let's hear it.



Purple said:


> The common good is lost in that search for common ground. It turns into the insiders negotiating on how to divide up the cake



I agree somewhat. But that doesn't make it all bad. Better that some actually get a slice of the cake than nobody getting anything at all. 
Preferably, everyone got a slice of the cake. But those that choose not to be represented at the table can hardly cry foul afterwards.


----------



## Purple (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> But those that choose not to be represented at the table can hardly cry foul afterwards.



The only people at the table should be the people and their government.

The only thing you should need to do be have a voice at that table is vote.
When I vote in this democracy I should have an equal voice with all of my fellow citizens who also voted.

The people and their government; everyone else is a barrier between those two. This is a representative democracy. Vested interest groups, in all their various forms, who lobby politicians on behalf of the self interest of their members, are subverting that democracy.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> The only people at the table should be the people and their government.
> 
> The only thing you should need to do be have a voice at that table is vote.
> When I vote in this democracy I should have an equal voice with all of my fellow citizens who also voted.
> ...



This is a very simplistic version of how the world should work.
Who represents the 'people' at the table when dealing with the government? Backbenchers and the opposition parties?
Is that it?


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> No it doesn't. Because if you provide a reliable efficient service, as opposed to an unreliable, inefficient service, then productivity increases. And in the case of LUAS they are exceeding their productivity targets. Which means, tens of thousands of other workers are arriving at their place of work in a timely and efficient manner. Which means a city like Dublin becomes an attractive place to invest. Which means jobs, well paid jobs, which means more income circulating in the economy than what would have been if we choose to have a crappy, unreliable transport service, in which case even the minimum wage will look expensive in the long-run.



That's not what I am saying though. You have argued that paying the minimum wages leads to high staff turnover making it an unreliable business model. Therefore you need to pay more than the minimum wage to keep workers happy. Someone earning 1e per hour more than the minimum wage is going to feel better about their pay than if they were earning the minimum wage and are more likely to come to work. If the minimum wage is increased by 1e per hour, now this worker is in the same position as those on the minimum wage and will look to have their wages increased again.

Just regarding trade unions and the improvements in working conditions you have mentioned....I think these are all good. 5 days a week and 8 hours per day are ideal for most people, especially those with families. The unions are also responsible for things like some staff maintaining time off to cash cheques although they are paid online and others so it's not all desirable. In any case, I wonder has the pendulum swung too far - look at all the zero hour contracts, under employment, casual labour, gig economy jobs. I'm not blaming unions per se for this, but has employment law become too restrictive for small business that they are afraid to hire someone on a full-time basis.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> Someone earning 1e per hour more than the minimum wage is going to feel better about their pay than if they were earning the minimum wage and are more likely to come to work



Yes, providing a more reliable, less disrupted service. This will normally equate to greater productivity attracting investment. So just because someone can do the job for less money, doesn't mean it's the best option. From an accounting perspective yes, from an economic perspective, no.



Firefly said:


> If the minimum wage is increased by 1e per hour, now this worker is in the same position as those on the minimum wage and will look to have their wages increased again.



If that extra 1e results in greater productivity from that workers, that is a sound investment. It makes sense to invest more in other employees and pay the extra 1e.


----------



## Leo (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> That's a classic. Motionless trams!



Birmingham airport had fully automated maglev trams in 1984. Japan's tram system in Kobe Port was fully automated in 1981. London Underground has the ATO system that allows more frequent service when the inefficiencies of human drivers are taken out of the picture.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> The unions are also responsible for things like some staff maintaining time off to cash cheques although they are paid online and others so it's not all desirable



The reality of this is, like me, I get paid online, I don't stand up and tell my manager I'm going to lodge my paycheck in the bank. In effect, it doesn't apply. It only applies to worker's who still get paid by cheque (if any).


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> Birmingham airport had fully automated maglev trams in 1984. Japan's tram system in Kobe Port was fully automated in 1981. London Underground has the ATO system that allows more frequent service when the inefficiencies of human drivers are taken out of the picture.



And your point?
How many pedestrian crossings, cyclists, motorists do these automated trains deal with?
It was stated that there is no need for LUAS tram drivers. My bet is, that if the LUAS trams are to move through a busy city cente they need a driver. Isn't that right?


----------



## Leo (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> And your point?
> How many pedestrian crossings, cyclists, motorists do these automated trains deal with?
> It was stated that there is no need for LUAS tram drivers. My bet is, that if the LUAS trams are to move through a busy city cente they need a driver. Isn't that right?



Quite simple really, you stated a driverless tram would be a motionless one. I'm just clearing up how far in the past you're living.

Current technology means automated trams can do a much better job of controlling a tram while observing a myriad of moving objects on all sides simulaneously. Indeed if they were automated you wouldn't have a driver forgetting to stop at a signal proceed to ram a bus.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> you stated a driverless tram would be a motionless one.



No I didn't. Quote me on it if I did.
I was referring specifically to LUAS trams and the need for that service to be reliable due to its strategic importance in transporting tens of thousands of other workers to their place of work. That is what we were talking about. 
What you and Purple are now talking about is a diversion to avoid answering the question.
The LUAS tram service, as being delivered by Transdev, requires a driver to drive the trams. Isn't that right?
A driverless LUAS tram, as we know them today, would be a motionless tram. Isn't that right?


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, providing a more reliable, less disrupted service. This will normally equate to greater productivity attracting investment. So just because someone can do the job for less money, doesn't mean it's the best option. From an accounting perspective yes, from an economic perspective, no.
> If that extra 1e results in greater productivity from that workers, that is a sound investment. It makes sense to invest more in other employees and pay the extra 1e.



My argument is that the minimum wage, and more specifically raising it, acts to force wages upwards. Whether that's justified or beneficial to the employer is beside the point.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> Current technology means automated trams can do a much better job of controlling a tram while observing a myriad of moving objects on all sides simulaneously. Indeed if they were automated you wouldn't have a driver forgetting to stop at a signal proceed to ram a bus.



That's terrific, I agree. I'm not sure of any examples of where this system is rolled out, do you?


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> My argument is that the minimum wage, and more specifically raising it, acts to force wages upwards. Whether that's justified or beneficial to the employer is beside the point.



I know what your argument is, but it is simplistic and limited if you don't consider whether or not it is justified or beneficial to the employer.
If it is not beneficial to the employer, in other words, the return is less than the cost, then yes, that is driving up wages.
If it is beneficial to the employer, in other words the return is greater than the cost, then it is not driving up wages.
In nominal and accounting terms, yes. In economic terms, no.


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I know what your argument is, but it is simplistic and limited if you don't consider whether or not it is justified or beneficial to the employer.
> If it is not beneficial to the employer, in other words, the return is less than the cost, then yes, that is driving up wages.
> If it is beneficial to the employer, in other words the return is greater than the cost, then it is not driving up wages.
> In nominal and accounting terms, yes. In economic terms, no.



Say your friend in the fast food business pays his employees 1 euro above the minimum wage and the minimum wage gets increased by 1 euro. What do you think he is going to have to do?


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> Say your friend in the fast food business pays his employees 1 euro above the minimum wage and the minimum wage gets increased by 1 euro. What do you think he is going to have to do?



I don't know, you tell me.


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I don't know, you tell me.



I think he will have to pay his staff 1 euro per hour more, what do you think?


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> I think he will have to pay his staff 1 euro per hour more, what do you think?



You are talking about something else now. The State interfering with minimum hourly rate and the potential knock on consequences. I was talking about something else.
 The need to consider the value of the job relative to its input to the wider economy, regardless of its skill set.


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> You are talking about something else now. The State interfering with minimum hourly rate and the potential knock on consequences. I was talking about something else.
> The need to consider the value of the job relative to its input to the wider economy, regardless of its skill set.



I'm not (see post 83) . You have argued that that paying the minimum wage leads to high staff turnover making it an unreliable business model. I have think the minimum wage drives up wages (and asked you in post #83). I have tried to offer a specific example of this by way of your friend in the fast food business where he (let's say) currently pays his staff 1 euro above the minimum wage. I have argued that if the minimum wage is increased by 1 euro he will have to increase the wages he currently pays to his staff by 1 euro. I've asked you to tell me what you think he would do but you have not yet answered.


----------



## Leo (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> No I didn't. Quote me on it if I did.



In response to:



Purple said:


> No, I would like to see no drivers at all. They are completely unnecessary



You said:



TheBigShort said:


> That's a classic. Motionless trams!






TheBigShort said:


> I was referring specifically to LUAS trams and the need for that service to be reliable due to its strategic importance in transporting tens of thousands of other workers to their place of work. That is what we were talking about.
> What you and Purple are now talking about is a diversion to avoid answering the question.
> The LUAS tram service, as being delivered by Transdev, requires a driver to drive the trams. Isn't that right?
> A driverless LUAS tram, as we know them today, would be a motionless tram. Isn't that right?



Oh, so now we're just talking about today. Maybe you could have made that clearer rather than seek to redefine the scope and limits of discussions after the fact. 

Anyway, Alstom already have the automation technology, back to talking about the not too distant future. The Luas should be fully automated.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> I think he will have to pay his staff 1 euro per hour more, what do you think?



I don't know, you tell me.



Firefly said:


> You have argued that that paying the minimum wage leads to high staff turnover making it an unreliable business model.



To be more specific, a less reliable service than if wages were higher.



Firefly said:


> I've asked you to tell me what you think he would do but you have not yet answered.



I don't know what he would have to do. It's quite plausible that he would have to increase wages of higher workers. Increasing the minimum wage can drive up wages.
When the minimum wage went from 8.65 to 9.15 per hour that was an effective 5.7% increase.
Did you get a 5.7% increase? I didn't.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> You said:



Sorry, I should have said "motionless _LUAS _trams", because it wasn't abundantly clear to you that when I referred to the capital city's transport network (just to be clear, when I say capital city, I'm referring to Dublin) that I was referring to LUAS.



Leo said:


> Oh, so now we're just talking about today. Maybe you could have made that clearer rather than seek to redefine the scope and limits of discussions after the fact.



If you want to divert to technological advances in transport networks that's fine, I don't take issue with that. But if I want to know what you and others think about paying wages over and above minimum wage for tram drivers (LUAS ones) then I think that's fair game too.




Leo said:


> Anyway, Alstom already have the automation technology, back to talking about the not too distant future. The Luas should be fully automated.



If you think the LUAS should be automated, great! Can you give us an example of where a city centre has a fully automated tram system rolled out?


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Increasing the minimum wage can drive up wages.



I agree.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> I agree.



Great, we agree on something. Can I ask what was the point of your interjection?


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Great, we agree on something. Can I ask what was the point of your interjection?



I was just looking for confirmation on what you believed the effects of increasing the minimum wage are.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> I was just looking for confirmation on what you believed the effects of increasing the minimum wage are.



I responded to a comment that LUAS drivers were grossly overpaid. Since then the topic has diverted to the effects of increasing the minimum wage, sub-saharan farmers, junior doctors, the definition of a pizza worker's and new automated tram technologies.
Not one reasoned argument as to why LUAS drivers shouldn't be paid what they agreed with their employer.


----------



## Leo (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> If you want to divert to technological advances in transport networks that's fine, I don't take issue with that. But if I want to know what you and others think about paying wages over and above minimum wage for tram drivers (LUAS ones) then I think that's fair game too.



I've no problem with Luas drivers, or any sector being paid more than minimum wage, the market should set the appropriate wage. Given the number of applicants per open positions, it is clear they are currently paid a lot more than is required.


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I responded to a comment that LUAS drivers were grossly overpaid. Since then the topic has diverted to the effects of increasing the minimum wage, sub-saharan farmers, junior doctors, the definition of a pizza worker's and new automated tram technologies.
> Not one reasoned argument as to why LUAS drivers shouldn't be paid what they agreed with their employer.



I'm certainly not saying it's your fault, but for some reason, anytime you are involved in a thread it seems to take on a life of its own and goes off in multiple tangents!


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> I've no problem with Luas drivers, or any sector being paid more than minimum wage, the market should set the appropriate wage. Given the number of applicants per open positions, it is clear they are currently paid a lot more than is required.



I agree. I remember reading that during the strike the operators of the LUAS were inundated with CVs. I guess that's my issue with unions....they server to retain / improve the pay / conditions for its members over and above the market rate.


----------



## Leo (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> I agree. I remember reading that during the strike the operators of the LUAS were inundated with CVs. I guess that's my issue with unions....they server to retain / improve the pay / conditions for its members over and above the market rate.



More than 2000 applicants for 29 jobs.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> I'm certainly not saying it's your fault, but for some reason, anytime you are involved in a thread it seems to take on a life of its own and goes off in multiple tangents!



Surely that should read, "anytime _we_ are involved in a thread..."


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Surely that should read, "anytime _we_ are involved in a thread..."



True to be fair!


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> I've no problem with Luas drivers, or any sector being paid more than minimum wage, the market should set the appropriate wage. Given the number of applicants per open positions, it is clear they are currently paid a lot more than is required.



No it doesn't. It simply means that the terms that the company is offering is attractive to a large pool of prospective applicants. Ask yourself, which came first, the job offer or the job applicant? Obviously it was the job offer. These are the terms that the company has set out in order to attract the required applicant. If there is a large response, it doesn't mean that those 2,000 applicants all meet the criteria that the company is looking for. For instance, if a number of applicants were workers with skillsets that, in ordinary times, would afford higher rates of pay than what was on offer, working 9 -5 Mon to Fri, no shiftwork, no public holidays etc...then its possible that in any short-listing process, those workers could be classed as 'over-qualified' by the company. In turn, assuming the economy returns to normal, those workers will be up and leaving when the opportunity affords it to them.
Also, applicants who perhaps have just left school, and have no track record of working shifts would also be crossed off the short-list.
On the otherhand, a taxi driver who wanted out of the taxi business due to depleting returns, may see the opportunity of LUAS work as more steady, more social and in turn may have a proven track record of working shifts, late at night, weekends etc. This prospective employee may be considered by the company as more suitable, than say, an unemployed chemist.

In the end, perhaps only 250 of the 2,000 had realistic prospects of getting the job.


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> No it doesn't. It simply means that the terms that the company is offering is attractive to a large pool of prospective applicants. Ask yourself, which came first, the job offer or the job applicant? Obviously it was the job offer. These are the terms that the company has set out in order to attract the required applicant. If there is a large response, it doesn't mean that those 2,000 applicants all meet the criteria that the company is looking for. For instance, if a number of applicants were workers with skillsets that, in ordinary times, would afford higher rates of pay than what was on offer, working 9 -5 Mon to Fri, no shiftwork, no public holidays etc...then its possible that in any short-listing process, those workers could be classed as 'over-qualified' by the company. In turn, assuming the economy returns to normal, those workers will be up and leaving when the opportunity affords it to them.
> Also, applicants who perhaps have just left school, and have no track record of working shifts would also be crossed off the short-list.
> On the otherhand, a taxi driver who wanted out of the taxi business due to depleting returns, may see the opportunity of LUAS work as more steady, more social and in turn may have a proven track record of working shifts, late at night, weekends etc. This prospective employee may be considered by the company as more suitable, than say, an unemployed chemist.
> 
> In the end, perhaps only 250 of the 2,000 had realistic prospects of getting the job.



You make some valid points, but we simply don't know the quality of applicants. I'm sure if no applicants applied you would be arguing that the wages are too low!


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> You make some valid points, but we simply don't know the quality of applicants. I'm sure if no applicants applied you would be arguing that the wages are too low!



The point I'm trying to make is that wages are not simply set by market supply and demand. It is a factor of course, but any company worth its salt is also analyzing the prospective applicant to meet the criteria it has set out for itself to meet the objectives of the company. That criteria will invariably add value to the position.
Labour is not a commodity to be bought and sold at will. Slavery was abolished a long time ago.

When Pat Kenny left RTE for Newstalk, there was media speculation of a number of high profile candidates to take his position on radio and TV. Just because the number of prospective applicants outnumbered the vacancy by at least 5 to 1, doesn't mean that the wage paid should be driven down _on that basis alone_.


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that wages are not simply set by market supply and demand. It is a factor of course, but any company worth its salt is also analyzing the prospective applicant to meet the criteria it has set out for itself to meet the objectives of the company. That criteria will invariably add value to the position.



I take your point. Lots of other considerations are taken into the account - the skills, experience, personality etc. However if the company sifts through all of the applicants and ends up with say 3 times more suitable applicants than positions it will surely (and rightly) try to offer the lowest wage it can.



TheBigShort said:


> Labour is not a commodity to be bought and sold at will. Slavery was abolished a long time ago.



I think you are conflating slavery with short term work requirements. Slavery was forced, lots of labour today is required at a short-term notice for a short period of time. We did up the house this year...I needed a plasterer for a specific 3 day period. Was that slavery?



TheBigShort said:


> When Pat Kenny left RTE for Newstalk, there was media speculation of a number of high profile candidates to take his position on radio and TV. Just because the number of prospective applicants outnumbered the vacancy by at least 5 to 1, doesn't mean that the wage paid should be driven down on that basis alone.


I agree...as above, if 2 people meet the requirements and all things being equal then whoever works for the lower rate would get the job


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> I take your point. Lots of other considerations are taken into the account - the skills, experience, personality etc. However if the company sifts through all of the applicants and ends up with say 3 times more suitable applicants than positions it will surely (and rightly) try to offer the lowest wage it can.



Which it tried to do by reneging on its agreed commitments.



Firefly said:


> I think you are conflating slavery with short term work requirements. Slavery was forced, lots of labour today is required at a short-term notice for a short period of time. We did up the house this year...I needed a plasterer for a specific 3 day period. Was that slavery?



Ok, I'll give you that one.



Firefly said:


> I agree...as above, if 2 people meet the requirements and all things being equal then whoever works for the lower rate would get the job



Not necessarily, just because someone can do the job cheaper, does not necessarily mean they meet all the criteria that the employer has set in its objectives. If the company operated a 50/50 gender balance and there was a deficit of females in the post, the company may be inclined to meet the higher wage demands of a female candidate than that of a male candidate.


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Not necessarily, just because someone can do the job cheaper, does not necessarily mean they meet all the criteria that the employer has set in its objectives. If the company operated a 50/50 gender balance and there was a deficit of females in the post, the company may be inclined to meet the higher wage demands of a female candidate than that of a male candidate.



That's what I meant by meeting the requirements. In your example, two female candidates with the same qualities present for one job. All things being equal, if one applicant will work for less than the other they should get the gig.


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Ok, I'll give you that one.



I'm going to print this off !!!


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> True to be fair!


I hate the way you two do that.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Aug 2017)

sahd said:


> Those 800k people are not people in jobs who don't want them (as TheBigShort suggested) -



That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that the title of this topic was misleading with regard to the content of the report. That the title could be construed as meaning that there are 800k working people who were simply unhappy in their jobs as much as meaning that there were 800k adults who couldn't be bothered working.
Either way, like I said 'catchy headline', but misleading.



sahd said:


> they are people with no employment who are of working age who have said they don't want to work.



I don't think they said they don't want to work.




sahd said:


> There is no breakdown - but that figure is probably be made up of students, stay at home parents , carers , disabled/sick , unemployed , early retired, wealthy who don't need jobs.



Students not wanting to work? What are they studying for?
Stay at home parents? A job in itself.
Carers? A low paid undervalued job.
Disabled/sick? A possibility that they can't work, or can't get work, as distinct from not wanting to work?
Unemployed are officially classed as people without a job but actively looking for a job.

My point was that the employment rate reflected a large number of jobs where the job holder would like to work _more _hours, but currently only hold positions that provide significantly less than 40 hrs. Hence the reports conclusion that there is no wage inflationary pressures.


----------



## Purple (31 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that the title of this topic was misleading with regard to the content of the report. That the title could be construed as meaning that there are 800k working people who were simply unhappy in their jobs as much as meaning that there were 800k adults who couldn't be bothered working.
> Either way, like I said 'catchy headline', but misleading.


 Agreed.


----------



## cremeegg (31 Aug 2017)

You wil forgive me I hope for having glazed over some of the proceeding posts. 

I would just like to return to the previous matter, of the Luas Driver. Not only grossly overpaid but bloodyminded and indulged by his employer.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...se-it-was-too-close-to-end-of-shift-1.3204703


----------



## Purple (31 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> You wil forgive me I hope for having glazed over some of the proceeding posts.
> 
> I would just like to return to the previous matter, of the Luas Driver. Not only grossly overpaid but bloodyminded and indulged by his employer.
> 
> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...se-it-was-too-close-to-end-of-shift-1.3204703


There's nothing unusual about that in the Public Transport sector. In fact the only thing that is unusual is that the employer sanctioned the driver. The CIE group companies would be too frightened of the unions to do that.


----------



## Firefly (31 Aug 2017)

cremeegg said:


> You wil forgive me I hope for having glazed over some of the proceeding posts.
> 
> I would just like to return to the previous matter, of the Luas Driver. Not only grossly overpaid but bloodyminded and indulged by his employer.
> 
> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...se-it-was-too-close-to-end-of-shift-1.3204703



Reading this I was thinking of how often that last route has been late whereby the driver could reasonably expect to finish after the due time. I mean if this happened regularly / all the time I wouldn't like it either, but then I note:

_It was also noted that the driver’s team leader had told him that he could leave the city centre terminus five minutes early to ensure that he got back to the Red Cow Station with time to spare before the end of his shift. _

And I thought "Ah here" 

Just to add....leaving 5 minutes early is not much good to someone depending on the last tram though is it?


----------



## cremeegg (31 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> Just to add....leaving 5 minutes early is not much good to someone depending on the last tram though is it?



Don't be silly, that doesn't matter, to the Company, the Driver or the WRC.

LUAS and so many other *public* utilities are run not for the benefit of the customers or the taxpayer but for the benefit of the staff and management.


----------



## TheBigShort (1 Sep 2017)

cremeegg said:


> LUAS and so many other *public* utilities are run not for the benefit of the customers or the taxpayer but for the benefit of the staff and management.



You have identified one instance of an employee reneging on his/her responsibility to perform his job for which s/he was paid for, and for that another (lazy) generalised attack on public sector workers.
I identified one instance of an employer reneging on their responsibility to pay wages as agreed for work performed, and yet not one ounce of indignation against anyone - except those that actually stood up and fought their corner.


----------



## cremeegg (2 Sep 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> You have identified one instance of an employee reneging on his/her responsibility to perform his job for which s/he was paid for, and for that another (lazy) generalised attack on public sector workers.



That is the second time on this thread that you have called me lazy, you really have to try to learn to play nicely, or you will end up with no friends.

While of course people who don't want to work for their money can be found anywhere, I suggest that it takes a certain mentality for the employer to agree to reorganise the work for their convenience.
_
"the driver’s team leader had told him that he could leave the city centre terminus five minutes early to ensure that he got back to the Red Cow Station with time to spare"_

and when even that did not satisfy him, to let it go with a warning.
_
"the claimant was exposed to being dismissed for his conduct and that the employer did indeed apply leniency by giving him the lesser sanction"
_
And what about poor Mrs Byrne who arrived at the tram stop with 3 minutes to spare only to discover that the tram was gone cause the driver wanted to finish up. Mrs Byrne, who pays her fare and who's taxes subsidise the LUAS drivers' grossly inflated wages.


----------



## TheBigShort (3 Sep 2017)

cremeegg said:


> That is the second time on this thread that you have called me lazy, you really have to try to learn to play nicely, or you will end up with no friends.



I didn't call you lazy, merely suggested your generalised comment about public sector workers was lazy.



cremeegg said:


> While of course people who don't want to work for their money can be found anywhere,



Well, to be consistent then, public and* private sector *ultilities are not run for the benefit of consumers and taxpayers but for the benefit of staff and management?



cremeegg said:


> suggest that it takes a certain mentality for the employer to agree to reorganise the work for their convenience.
> _
> "the driver’s team leader had told him that he could leave the city centre terminus five minutes early to ensure that he got back to the Red Cow Station with time to spare_



With respect, that wasn't the employer, but another employee.



cremeegg said:


> And what about poor Mrs Byrne who arrived at the tram stop with 3 minutes to spare only to discover that the tram was gone cause the driver wanted to finish up. Mrs Byrne, who pays her fare and who's taxes subsidise the LUAS drivers' grossly inflated wages.



Mrs Byrne was certainly inconvenienced. What is your point? I'm not defending the employee who didn't complete his/her shift.
On the other hand, the tens of thousands of people who were inconvenienced during the LUAS dispute, what about them?
What do you think of an employer that reneged on agreements made with employees, inconveniencing tens of thousands of people?


----------



## cremeegg (3 Sep 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Well, to be consistent then, public and* private sector *ultilities are not run for the benefit of consumers and taxpayers but for the benefit of staff and management?



I agree. The mobile phone companies. the banks, the electricity companies. None of these are run for the benefit of their customers.

But private companies are not often monopolies and never have political masters.

My taxes are not being used to pay the grossly over inflated salaries in any mobile telephone company. 

When my AIB relationship manager (this is a long time ago) promised me something and then didn't deliver, I closed my account.

The senior management don't have to run these organisations with one eye on the voters.


----------



## TheBigShort (3 Sep 2017)

cremeegg said:


> I agree. The mobile phone companies. the banks, the electricity companies. None of these are run for the benefit of their customers.





cremeegg said:


> But private companies are not often monopolies and never have political masters.



So what? What difference does it make? If companies are not being run for the benefit of customers, as you say, who cares if it is a monopoly or not? Either way, customers aren't benefiting.



cremeegg said:


> My taxes are not being used to pay the grossly over inflated salaries in any mobile telephone company.



No but your disposable income is.



cremeegg said:


> When my AIB relationship manager (this is a long time ago) promised me something and then didn't deliver, I closed my account.



And what? Open another account in a different bank? That isn't being run for the benefit of customers, as you say?
That'll show them!


----------



## RichInSpirit (3 Sep 2017)

Make that 800001, given financial independence i'd happily join the other 800000. ☺


----------

