# I think I’ll go on strike



## Purple (19 Feb 2009)

I think I’ll go on strike:

Example one (doing a “Taxi Driver”): I am a shop keeper and have found that competition is driving down my margins and I have to work harder to earn the same income. I will protest in front of the Dail demanding that the government forces other shops to close down, or at least stop allowing new shops from opening.

Example two (doing a “Bus Driver”): My employer is broke (despite a massive hand out each year from the parent company that owns the business) and demand for our services has dropped off significantly over the last few months. In order to stop the company losing money and becoming insolvent the company wants to lay off staff that no longer have anything to do. Obviously the right thing to do is to strike to stop them from doing this so that all of our jobs will be in jeopardy in the near future.

Example three (doing a “Public sector union”): My employer provides me with a defined benefit pension toward which I make a small contribution. At the moment the company is broke and has to borrow up to one third of the funds it needs for day to day expenditure. Therefore they want me to increase my contribution toward my pension (but still come nowhere near covering the full cost). Obviously I am against this and would rather see them borrow even more money, sack many of my co-workers who are not on the same job for life contract that I am on or cut back on even more of the essential  services that they provide for the most needy and vulnerable in society. Therefore I will go on strike ‘till they issue a statement saying “Screw the rest of them; you’re all right jack”.


----------



## Smashbox (19 Feb 2009)

You're gonna be as popular as ever, Purple


----------



## Ceist Beag (19 Feb 2009)

I know it shouldn't be funny cause it's true ... but it is kinda funny!! Christ what a country!


----------



## Madangan (19 Feb 2009)

Please somebody help me I have just read Purples post and I agree with it! This is very abnormal  for me ..I must be very ill..maybe Im developing a serious mental illness...

Help..Doctor anyone?


----------



## Caveat (19 Feb 2009)

Imagine if unions themselves went on strike - wouldn't that be funny?

Maybe they think some of their perks aren't good enough or their pay packets too small - surely their due paying members would support them?



> Please somebody help me I have just read Purples post and I agree with it! This is very abnormal for me ..I must be very ill..maybe Im developing a serious mental illness...
> 
> Help..Doctor anyone?



It's ok. Its called 'the crossing over phase' in the new reality.  It will pass.  Next will come the 'bush aversion' stage where you stop beating around it.


----------



## Smashbox (19 Feb 2009)

Caveat said:


> It's ok. Its called 'the crossing over phase' in the new reality. It will pass.


 
Does it ever stop hurting?!


----------



## S.L.F (19 Feb 2009)

Madangan said:


> Please somebody help me I have just read Purples post and I agree with it! This is very abnormal for me ..I must be very ill..maybe Im developing a serious mental illness...
> 
> Help..Doctor anyone?


 
We don't discuss health issues on AAM


----------



## mathepac (19 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> We don't discuss health issues on AAM


Yes we do - financial health, property market health, automotive health, horticultural health, plumbing & energy health, legal health, tax compliance health and so on - I think you are being unfair to the moderators' carpal tunnel health.


----------



## shesells (19 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> I think I’ll go on strike


 
Can you afford to be docked a day's pay for the privilidge!


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2009)

shesells said:


> Can you afford to be docked a day's pay for the privilidge!



I'll just pull a sickie.


----------



## shesells (19 Feb 2009)

Lucky you getting paid for sick leave then!


----------



## S.L.F (19 Feb 2009)

mathepac said:


> Yes we do - financial health, property market health, automotive health, horticultural health, plumbing & energy health, legal health, tax compliance health and so on - I think you are being unfair to the moderators' carpal tunnel health.


 
Now I feel sick!


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2009)

shesells said:


> Lucky you getting paid for sick leave then!



I don't, but the sort of person who goes on strike usually does. 



On a more serious note two friends of mine who are public servants (one of whom coined the “Bearded Brethren” phrase to describe the Union Leaders) are taking a day’s annual leave the day of the strike as they don’t agree with it but are aware of the intimidation and bullying they will experience from their union if they are seen to break the strike.
As one of them put it, “There’s no intimidation like union intimidation”.


----------



## shesells (19 Feb 2009)

My friend on €20k a year loses a day's pay to strike next week cos he feels he'll be letting himself down if he doesn't. He can't afford this exta levy, only took the job in the first place because of the benefits despite the poor salary. Now he loses more of his salary for the same benefits he was always going to get.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2009)

shesells said:


> My friend on €20k a year loses a day's pay to strike next week cos he feels he'll be letting himself down if he doesn't. He can't afford this exta levy, only took the job in the first place because of the benefits despite the poor salary. Now he loses more of his salary for the same benefits he was always going to get.



Welcome to the recession.


----------



## NorthDrum (20 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> I think I’ll go on strike:
> 
> Example one (doing a “Taxi Driver”): I am a shop keeper and have found that competition is driving down my margins and I have to work harder to earn the same income. I will protest in front of the Dail demanding that the government forces other shops to close down, or at least stop allowing new shops from opening.
> 
> ...


 
Perfect, simple explanation of whats going on at the moment. Top Top post.

Just wanted to add a bit at the bottom:

_If striking doesn’t work I will jump on the next, most popular, “in” thing. _

_Examples include:_

_·         __blaming the government ( I didn’t vote FF so I shouldn’t be part of this recession!)_
_·         __blaming bankers (for lending me money, I wouldn’t of spent it if they didn’t give it to me!)_
_·         __blaming public or private sectors (depends which side your on)_

If pointing fingers, blaming everybody doesn’t solve the country’s problems, I don’t know what will . . . .


----------



## DublinTexas (20 Feb 2009)

Maybe it's time that the resonable people demanding resonable action are having a demonstration in front of goverment buildings.

These days it's all about minorities protesting against contributing towards the mess that we all are in, so maybe it's time that the real miniority people that want resonable action take a stand.


----------



## Mpsox (20 Feb 2009)

Caveat said:


> Imagine if unions themselves went on strike - wouldn't that be funny?
> 
> Maybe they think some of their perks aren't good enough or their pay packets too small - surely their due paying members would support them?
> 
> ...


 
didn't staff in one of the builders/trades unions go on strike last year over job cuts in the union?


----------



## becky (20 Feb 2009)

Purple;812108 
 
On a more serious note two friends of mine who are public servants (one of whom coined the “Bearded Brethren” phrase to describe the Union Leaders) are taking a day’s annual leave the day of the strike as they don’t agree with it but are aware of the intimidation and bullying they will experience from their union if they are seen to break the strike.
As one of them put it said:
			
		

> If they are members of the union they will have to participate in the industrial action.   Taking annual leave is the same as passing the picket.
> 
> If they are on pre planned leave that will be acceptable but they can't just take leave because because they don't wish to to go on strike.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2009)

becky said:


> If they are members of the union they will have to participate in the industrial action.   Taking annual leave is the same as passing the picket.
> 
> If they are on pre planned leave that will be acceptable but they can't just take leave because because they don't wish to to go on strike.


Why? Can't they opt out if they disagree with the strike?
If they bdo take annaulo leave who will know?


----------



## Pique318 (20 Feb 2009)

becky said:


> If they are members of the union they will *have to* participate in the industrial action.   Taking annual leave is the same as passing the picket.


Have to ? Why, if they dodge it by taking annual leave, are the Union 'heavies' gonna break their legs or something ? I though this was a (somewhat) free country.

I reckon Cowan should hire Maggie as a consultant/strike-breaker. She's got more balls than him for the job anyway I reckon.


----------



## cole (20 Feb 2009)

If you're in a union then it's majority rules. If you don't agree with your union then leave. It's not a la carthyism.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (20 Feb 2009)

cole said:


> If you're in a union then it's majority rules. If you don't agree with your union then leave. It's not a la carthyism.


 
Or Just don't join in the 1st place as i have done.


----------



## sandrat (20 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Or Just don't join in the 1st place as i have done.


 
ditto


----------



## Ron Burgundy (20 Feb 2009)

Oh and i was asked in work today about crossing the picket line.......my answer is that i'll moonwalk across it !!!


----------



## Caveat (20 Feb 2009)

Slightly OT, but Ron & Sandra - can I ask, are you considering leaving then? and if so, is it because of the union's current stance or for a number of reasons - and in your experience do many of your co-workers share your views?


----------



## DublinTexas (20 Feb 2009)

cole said:


> If you're in a union then it's majority rules. If you don't agree with your union then leave. It's not a la carthyism.


 
This is exactly why we need to become a right to work state, unions have way to much power here.

If someone deceides that he does not like what the union is doing at a particular point while still believing in the union in the long run and he deceides that he rather than doing a public crossing the picket line make a silent decision to take a day off, than that is his right in my eyes.

Not everything the majority deceides is good and there must be legal ways to ensure that a person right to work are not interfeared with.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (20 Feb 2009)

I have no time for unions. The people running my union will not have to take the levy and are on much higher salary than me, so what is their motivation ??

I am not a sheep and when i ask people why they are in the union they just say....ah sure ya have to be or oh you never know when you'll need them.

Why would i consider leaving ??? I have told workers that i will cross the picket, i have also said that any abuse towards me will be dealt with as well. I will not be bullied into joining a union or doing something because everyone else is doing it.

it is a personal choice and i stand by it.


----------



## cole (20 Feb 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> Not everything the majority deceides is good and there must be legal ways to ensure that a person right to work are not interfeared with.



That's democracy for you!


----------



## DublinTexas (20 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> I have no time for unions. The people running my union will not have to take the levy and are on much higher salary than me, so what is their motivation ??
> 
> I am not a sheep and when i ask people why they are in the union they just say....ah sure ya have to be or oh you never know when you'll need them.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for standing up for what you believe in and I hope that you will be able to do what you wants (work) on that day.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2009)

cole said:


> That's democracy for you!



No, that’s called the tyranny of the majority. The reason countries have constitutions is to protect the people in these circumstances.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (20 Feb 2009)

Well i know some who are in the union and don't want to strike as they can'ty afford it. Some are 1 parent families and some have had partners laid off and are the only wage coming in to pay the bills.

They can either leave the union or just strike. No other option i believe.

I might even get a t shirt that says "yeah yeah i know i'm a scab"


----------



## Mpsox (20 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> I'll just pull a sickie.


 

purple flu????


----------



## Ron Burgundy (20 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> I'll just pull a sickie.


 
I hope you have a cert or no pay !!!


----------



## Caveat (20 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> "yeah yeah i know i'm a scab"


 
But ironically, a _scab_ is also something that works (in harmony), heals old wounds and prevents further bloodloss.

You could put that on a T-shirt


----------



## Ron Burgundy (20 Feb 2009)

i don't they would get it. Reading what is on the t shirt would be a job for most of them to be honest......


----------



## legallady (20 Feb 2009)

shesells said:


> My friend on €20k a year loses a day's pay to strike next week cos he feels he'll be letting himself down if he doesn't. He can't afford this exta levy, only took the job in the first place because of the benefits despite the poor salary. Now he loses more of his salary for the same benefits he was always going to get.


 

tell him to go out and get a job in the private sector then. less pay, no pension, longer hours, and the possibility of losing his job then after all of that.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (20 Feb 2009)

legallady said:


> tell him to go out and get a job in the private sector then. less pay, no pension, longer hours, and the possibility of losing his job then after all of that.


 
oh let me get the sad music and the hankies


----------



## DublinTexas (20 Feb 2009)

legallady said:


> tell him to go out and get a job in the private sector then. less pay, no pension, longer hours, and the possibility of losing his job then after all of that.


 
But I'm sorry, that is all the fault of goverment and employers that are engagaged in a campaign to drive down wages, as an alternative to currency devaluation. At least according to congress (Irish Congress of Trade Unions).

Again, I think that there are underpaid people in the public service just as there are underpaid people in private sector, we need to stop this "us" against "them" approach that is currently going on. Everybody should get a fair wage for the job they are doing and nobody should earn less than what they can get on social welfare. We need to reward working people.

And while I agree with people having the right to strike that does not take away the right of others to go to work and earn their living.

I actualy think that certain public sectors should not have the right to strike. If you look at the continent, several countries have laws in which civil cervants are not allowed to strike in return for better working conditions and pensions.

Core services of public service should not have the right to strike, if they don't like the conditions than they can go and work somewhere else, just like people in the private sector must. They should be paid a fair salary and benefits for the job they are doing.


----------



## cole (20 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> No, that’s called the tyranny of the majority. The reason countries have constitutions is to protect the people in these circumstances.




Democracy=Tyranny? Bit of a stretch.

BTW I'm not pro/anti union, but if you're in an organisation (like a country/union/whatever) then democracy is what we have. You can choose to ignore the wishes of the majority if you like.

I'm not an apologist for the unions, they're well able to do that themselves. If someone wants to work during a strike that's their business despite the fact that it undermines the whole notion of being in a union (united).


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2009)

cole said:


> Democracy=Tyranny? Bit of a stretch.
> 
> BTW I'm not pro/anti union, but if you're in an organisation (like a country/union/whatever) then democracy is what we have. You can choose to ignore the wishes of the majority if you like.
> 
> I'm not an apologist for the unions, they're well able to do that themselves. If someone wants to work during a strike that's their business despite the fact that it undermines the whole notion of being in a union (united).




The majority should not be allowed to infringe on the basic rights of the minority. The right to go to work is a basic right.


----------



## MOB (20 Feb 2009)

To be fair, if you are in a union, then you have at least implicitly (and probably explicitly - if anyone reads their union rules) agreed to abide by union rules, which include supporting strike decisions.

The real difficulty, I think, is that in many unionised workplaces, workers do not in reality have a whole lot of choice about whether or not to join the union.   And workers who do not support the present strikes are not really all that free to leave the union, in the sense that I cannot imagine their unionised colleagues saying 'fair enough - I respect your choice......'.  So they are stuck with hard choices:  lend support that they do not feel for a strike they do not want or suffer the odium of their colleagues.


----------



## sandrat (20 Feb 2009)

I'm on unpaid maternity leave now and then back on annual leave from 24th Feb I think so wouldnt be in work anyway. Don't think many in my work are in the union


----------



## cole (20 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> The majority should not be allowed to infringe on the basic rights of the minority. The right to go to work is a basic right.



I agree.

My point is that if you join a union then you should abide by the union decisions. You can't have a la carte decisions within a union no more than in a wider democracy. That said, there's not a whole lot you can do other than expel someone from the union if they break a strike.


----------



## liaconn (20 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> I have no time for unions. The people running my union will not have to take the levy and are on much higher salary than me, so what is their motivation ??
> 
> I am not a sheep and when i ask people why they are in the union they just say....ah sure ya have to be or oh you never know when you'll need them.
> 
> ...


 
Do you take the benefits which your colleagues' unions fight for? For instance, if as a result of your peers going on strike, the levy was reduced to a more manageable amount, or spread more evenly across workers, would you insist on paying the original amount as you 'have no time for unions' and didn't take part in the strike.


----------



## sandrat (20 Feb 2009)

liaconn said:


> Do you take the benefits which your colleagues' unions fight for? For instance, if as a result of your peers going on strike, the levy was reduced to a more manageable amount, or spread more evenly across workers, would you insist on paying the original amount as you 'have no time for unions' and didn't take part in the strike.


 
watching the dail debates online yesterday, the opposition are looking for changes to the legislation in relation to lower paid workers and the minister is open to some rejigging, so how do you know if it is the unions or the opposition causing the change.


----------



## liaconn (20 Feb 2009)

It was just an example. What I'm really saying, and it has been said loads of times before, is that a lot of people criticise the union but are quite happy to take the benefits they have achieved through negotiation, and when necessary, some form of industrial action.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (20 Feb 2009)

liaconn said:


> Do you take the benefits which your colleagues' unions* fight for*? For instance, if as a result of your peers going on strike, the levy was reduced to a more manageable amount, or spread more evenly across workers, would you insist on paying the original amount as you 'have no time for unions' and didn't take part in the strike.




Fight for ?? They get a raise through the social partners like all workers. Just as those on companies with no unions do also !!

They unions had their chance and did nothing before the levy was introduced ?? Now the members have to do what they paid the union heads to do, sort out the mess......great value for money every week eh

Highest a CO can be paid is 34k after a number of years service.....what do the guys at the top of the union get, much higher than that i'd say. 

As i've said, no levy for them and a good salary.....where is the motivation ?


----------



## Ron Burgundy (20 Feb 2009)

liaconn said:


> It was just an example. What I'm really saying, and it has been said loads of times before, is that a lot of people criticise the union but are quite happy to take the benefits they have achieved through negotiation, and when necessary, some form of industrial action.



Complete bull, i'm in the union because i feel they are too powerful in this country and are to blame for the high wage costs in this country that have driven jobs elsewhere.

Add to that their part in the FAS waste of money and the total two faced way of taking high salaries and yet.....standing up for the little man. Pull the other one, please.

At least Joe Higgins etc only took AIW


----------



## Pique318 (20 Feb 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> But I'm sorry, that is all the fault of goverment and employers that are engagaged in a campaign to drive down wages, as an alternative to *currency devaluation*. At least according to congress (Irish Congress of Trade Unions).


I'm not sure the rest of the Eurozone members would go along with the whims of Irelands government and employers somehow



Ron Burgundy said:


> Complete bull,i'm in the union because i feel *they *are too powerful in this country and are to blame for the high wage costs in this country that have driven jobs elsewhere.


'They' being .... who ? The unions IMO, and I thought you were along the same (picket?) lines. 
I'm confused by your post. I think you either mean you're NOT in the union and the above quote is a typo, or you mean the govt and employers are too powerful....
Or maybe I'm just tired and seeing things


----------



## Ron Burgundy (20 Feb 2009)

Pique318 said:


> I'm not sure the rest of the Eurozone members would go along with the whims of Irelands government and employers somehow
> 
> 
> 'They' being .... who ? The unions IMO, and I thought you were along the same (picket?) lines.
> ...



The unions are too powerful and i am not in the union as i have stated in many posts on this thread.


----------



## DublinTexas (20 Feb 2009)

Pique318 said:


> I'm not sure the rest of the Eurozone members would go along with the whims of Irelands government and employers somehow


 
Now come on, how can you dispute a very clear statement of "congress"? The quote "Goverment and Employers are engaged in a Campaing to Drive Down Wages, as an alternative to currency devaluation" is coming straight out of their newest flyer asking me to go and demonstrate.

How can you question the wisdom of "congress"?


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2009)

The ECB better watch out of the Bearded Brethren will open a can of whoop ass on them!


----------



## Complainer (21 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Just as those on companies with no unions do also !!


SOme do, some don't.


Ron Burgundy said:


> They unions had their chance and did nothing before the levy was introduced ?? Now the members have to do what they paid the union heads to do, sort out the mess......great value for money every week eh


Wrong. They didn't do nothing. They entered into serious negotations, and walked when it was clear that no fair deal was on the table. I don't hear too many union members quibbling about 'value for money'. The obvious solution for any member concerned about value for money is to leave the union, but 850,000 have opted to pay and stay in the union.



Ron Burgundy said:


> Highest a CO can be paid is 34k after a number of years service.....what do the guys at the top of the union get, much higher than that i'd say.


I'm not sure I get your point. Are you proposing that all union officials should be paid at CO rates? Sounds like an attempt to emasculate the unions to me.



MOB said:


> The real difficulty, I think, is that in many unionised workplaces, workers do not in reality have a whole lot of choice about whether or not to join the union.   And workers who do not support the present strikes are not really all that free to leave the union, in the sense that I cannot imagine their unionised colleagues saying 'fair enough - I respect your choice......'.  So they are stuck with hard choices:  lend support that they do not feel for a strike they do not want or suffer the odium of their colleagues.


Is it really still the case that anyone does not have the choice about joining the union? What workplaces did you have in mind?


----------



## DublinTexas (21 Feb 2009)

The opinion that I should support unions because they did good things for me via the polit bureau, sorry social partnership process is hogwash.

This whole social partnership process is one of the core problems that next to greed of individuals and businesses and incompetence of the ruling classes has caused the problems we are facing today.

When 2 years ago I said that this whole country is going to colapse because it is build on borrowed money and no significant savings were made by goverment to ensure we are ready for hards times most people laughed and did not believe me. Well look a the now, no significant savings to ensure they can survive for a couple of month from their savings and no equity in their house.

Instead of "gimme gimme gimme" during the good times all members of the polit bureau should have had this wisdom to know we will be crashing sooner or later and agreed on long term projects instead of a x% payrise.

Now that 20% of our workforce are in public service and 20% will become umemployeed we need to find a way how we can all support that. 

We are already breaking all EU rules about our borrowing and what we are borrowing we can't pay back for centuries to come. 

This is not the time in which we need unrelaistic demands from either side (unions or employers), this were we face the music and make up for the mess the polit bureau has created.

The first step is to look at what we actualy need on services, than see how we delivery that (with how many resources), than what we have to actualy pay for that and than adapt the workforce accordingly. 

If that means to get ride of 150 drivers in Dublin bus because there is no passenger to drive arround than that means letting these people go. We can't just employ people to do nothing, this is (not yet) the Communist Republic of Ireland.

I have a very strict opinion of people going on strike because they don't want to contribute to the rescue of a company. Let them go and replace them with people who are willing to work for the same conditions that the strikers would get. Not more Not less. In case of Dublin Bus, if they find drivers which are willing to work for the same money/conditions that are currently existing than they should bring these people in and get ride of the strikers. This is about survival not about the employer having a good time trying to gain some more profit, there is none!

If our infrastructure providers (which are in bad shape despite years of good money coming in) are going bust than the whole of the country is going down.

We need to act (and that includes both sides unions and employers) and so far I have not seen anything on side of the unions or the goverment that makes me feel confident that in 6-10 month we won't see civil unrest on the streets.


----------



## Complainer (21 Feb 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> The opinion that I should support unions because they did good things for me via the polit bureau, sorry social partnership process is hogwash.
> 
> This whole social partnership process is one of the core problems that next to greed of individuals and businesses and incompetence of the ruling classes has caused the problems we are facing today.
> 
> ...


The criticisms you detail here seem to relate a lot more to corporate greed than to social partnership. Perhaps you'd like to expand on what might have happened over the last 10 years without social partnership? 


DublinTexas said:


> If that means to get ride of 150 drivers in Dublin bus because there is no passenger to drive arround than that means letting these people go. We can't just employ people to do nothing, this is (not yet) the Communist Republic of Ireland.


This is nothing to do with communism. This is to do with Bus Eireann who went out last year with an aggressive recruitment campaign to poach drivers in steady employment to join them, and then dumping those same drivers at the end of their probationary period with no redundancy and no compensation. A fair deal is required - no-one is suggesting employing drivers to do nothing, please hold back on the exaggeration.


DublinTexas said:


> I have a very strict opinion of people going on strike because they don't want to contribute to the rescue of a company. Let them go and replace them with people who are willing to work for the same conditions that the strikers would get. Not more Not less. In case of Dublin Bus, if they find drivers which are willing to work for the same money/conditions that are currently existing than they should bring these people in and get ride of the strikers. This is about survival not about the employer having a good time trying to gain some more profit, there is none!


Congratulations - you've just created the IBEC nirvana wet dream race to the bottom. No employee rights, no redundancy rights. Once you get a cheaper employee, dump the current guy in a skip and replace him. And once you get a cheaper guy again, dump the cheap replacement in a skip. Rinse and repeat. And watch for a cut in the minimum wage to ensure that the cheap replacements don't get above their station.


----------



## DublinTexas (21 Feb 2009)

Complainer said:


> Congratulations - you've just created the IBEC nirvana wet dream race to the bottom. No employee rights, no redundancy rights. Once you get a cheaper employee, dump the current guy in a skip and replace him. And once you get a cheaper guy again, dump the cheap replacement in a skip. Rinse and repeat. And watch for a cut in the minimum wage to ensure that the cheap replacements don't get above their station.


 
That is not what I said you are describing the Ryainair model of employee relationship and I don't do Ryanair.

What I said was that in case where the survial of the company providing essential services is at stake and unresonable union demands are made workers who want to work for the existing conditions must be allowed to do so and that those who do not want to contribute to the survial of the company need to be let go and be replaced by people that are willing to contribute. I quite clearly said that those must be willing to work for the same conditions that the strikers would get. Not more Not less. I'm not saying they should get less as you describe. 

In respect of minimum wage, I always advocate a fair minimum wage as work must be rewarded and if you work you should get more than on social welfare. And I don't care if that is in public or private sector. Work is a basic right and fair money for work is one too.



Complainer said:


> The criticisms you detail here seem to relate a lot more to corporate greed than to social partnership. Perhaps you'd like to expand on what might have happened over the last 10 years without social partnership?


 
Bohooo. Corporate greed can only work if there is no effective supervision of existing rules (and that is what we have) and there is another party that is willing to accept corporate greed. Nobody forced anybody to buy an overprized property with a 100% loan that anybody with half a brain knows they could not effort if the APR goes up by even a slight % point.
Greed went through all layers of our society, some just profited more than others. 

I think that the Irish experiment of social partnership has contributed to the current problem and while I agree that there were some positive elements to it overall I would classify it as a failure as it only works in good times but not bad times (as we currently see).

I worked in several countries where labour relations are dictated by the goverment over where unions are an accepted partner up to where a block of people controll every element of the work live (aka social partners). None of these is perfect.

I actualy am of the opion that the social partnership only serves to protect top earners ranking for higher level public servants over union officials to private business CEO's.




Complainer said:


> This is nothing to do with communism. This is to do with Bus Eireann who went out last year with an aggressive recruitment campaign to poach drivers in steady employment to join them, and then dumping those same drivers at the end of their probationary period with no redundancy and no compensation. A fair deal is required - no-one is suggesting employing drivers to do nothing, please hold back on the exaggeration.


 
Sorry, but who owns or controlls Bus Eireann? Isn't that the goverment?

If you accept a job at terms and conditions that allow an "at will" employment by the employer that includes the option how redudancy is made than you have the risk that this happens. I have the same, I'm working "at will" of my boss, if they deceide to let me go, than let me see I get my P45 and if I'm long enough with the company I get my payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2007.

But I took the decision to accept that terms of my employment freely, I negoiated a package that I accepted as resonable for my circumstances and than entered the job knowing that if the economy turns I might loose it.

Just because Bus Eireann is owned by the state does not mean that this is a job for life.

It's time people accept that they contributed to this mess and that is from union officals over goverment to bank CEO's.


----------



## Purple (21 Feb 2009)

Excellent posts DublinTexas but you are wasting your time; "head", "banging" and "wall" springs to mind.


----------



## liaconn (21 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Complete bull, i'm in the union because i feel they are too powerful in this country and are to blame for the high wage costs in this country that have driven jobs elsewhere.
> 
> Add to that their part in the FAS waste of money and the total two faced way of taking high salaries and yet.....standing up for the little man. Pull the other one, please.
> 
> At least Joe Higgins etc only took AIW


 
You still haven't answered my question. The union has negotiated work/life balance policies, fairer promotion systems etc. Non union members are perfectly happy to avail of these while slagging off the union. They have also, in the past, had to fight for some very basic rights for workers eg health and safety regs. The problem is that some people don't realise how much of what they have is actually down to the existence of unions, take it for granted and then think the unions serve no purpose. I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I feel sorry for all the people who have worked hard on union committees over the years, gained a lot for staff and now find that  staff who don't remember the way things used to be just think they're a waste of time.


----------



## Complainer (21 Feb 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> That is not what I said you are describing the Ryainair model of employee relationship and I don't do Ryanair.
> 
> What I said was that in case where the survial of the company providing essential services is at stake and unresonable union demands are made workers who want to work for the existing conditions must be allowed to do so and that those who do not want to contribute to the survial of the company need to be let go and be replaced by people that are willing to contribute. I quite clearly said that those must be willing to work for the same conditions that the strikers would get. Not more Not less. I'm not saying they should get less as you describe.


Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for jumping to a conclusion. Actually, I don't think even Ryanair treat their employees like that, though Irish Ferries gave it their best shot.

I guess our disagreement comes down to what are 'unreasonable union demands'. I don't see anything unreasonable about a union seeking a fair deal for staff who (for example) gave up secure jobs just a few months back to join Bus Eireann being dumped out without a red cent. 



DublinTexas said:


> Bohooo. Corporate greed can only work if there is no effective supervision of existing rules (and that is what we have) and there is another party that is willing to accept corporate greed. Nobody forced anybody to buy an overprized property with a 100% loan that anybody with half a brain knows they could not effort if the APR goes up by even a slight % point.
> Greed went through all layers of our society, some just profited more than others.


 Yes and no. You are partially right when you say that nobody forced people to buy property. But this ignores the reality that a young couple who wanted to build a home for themselves and their family had no choice but to buy overpriced property. That's the only kind of property that was available, and we had the entire infrastructure of the state working to keep those prices artificially high. It would have been brave (and without the benefit of hindsight foolhardy) for a young couple to have opted out of the property market.


DublinTexas said:


> I think that the Irish experiment of social partnership has contributed to the current problem and while I agree that there were some positive elements to it overall I would classify it as a failure as it only works in good times but not bad times (as we currently see).
> 
> I worked in several countries where labour relations are dictated by the goverment over where unions are an accepted partner up to where a block of people controll every element of the work live (aka social partners). None of these is perfect.
> 
> I actualy am of the opion that the social partnership only serves to protect top earners ranking for higher level public servants over union officials to private business CEO's.


 In fairness, you're not answering my question. What do you think would have happened in the industrial relations arena in Ireland over the past 10 years without social partnership. It is very easy to criticise when you don't look at the other side of the coin.



DublinTexas said:


> Sorry, but who owns or controlls Bus Eireann? Isn't that the goverment?
> 
> If you accept a job at terms and conditions that allow an "at will" employment by the employer that includes the option how redudancy is made than you have the risk that this happens. I have the same, I'm working "at will" of my boss, if they deceide to let me go, than let me see I get my P45 and if I'm long enough with the company I get my payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2007.
> 
> ...


Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Beverly was legally entitled to her extra €41k allowance, but that doesn't make it right. Rody from FAS was legally entitled to his first class travel, but that doesn't make it right. Seanie was legally entitled to hide his director loans in Irish Nationwide, but that doesn't make it right.

Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus staff deserve fair treatment.



DublinTexas said:


> It's time people accept that they contributed to this mess and that is from union officals over goverment to bank CEO's.



Maybe you could explain how a driver who gave up a decent job to move to Bus Eireann 6 months ago contributed to this mess?


----------



## becky (23 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> Why? Can't they opt out if they disagree with the strike?
> If they bdo take annaulo leave who will know?


 
Think the question has been answered by now.  Yes they can opt out by leaving the union altogether but taking annual leave because you don't agree with the stance isn't an option during industrial action.


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2009)

becky said:


> Think the question has been answered by now.  Yes they can opt out by leaving the union altogether but taking annual leave because you don't agree with the stance isn't an option during industrial action.


So it's "you're either with us 100% or you're out". 
Typical socialist rubbish that ignores the needs of the individual.

There's no intimidation like union intimidation.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (23 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> So it's "you're either with us 100% or you're out".
> Typical socialist rubbish that ignores the needs of the individual.
> 
> *There's no intimidation like union intimidation.[/*quote]
> ...


----------



## becky (23 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> So it's "you're either with us 100% or you're out".
> Typical socialist rubbish that ignores the needs of the individual.
> 
> There's no intimidation like union intimidation.


 
Yes I suppose this is the case and I'm aware that many people join a union because they feel they have to.

I was however, pointing out that taking annual leave on the days of a strike isn't an option.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (23 Feb 2009)

becky said:


> Yes I suppose this is the case and I'm aware that many people join a union because they feel they have to.
> 
> I was however, pointing out that taking annual leave on the days of a strike isn't an option.


 
But a sick cert is. I'm out anyway as i'm having an operation.


----------



## Dreamerb (23 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> So it's "you're either with us 100% or you're out".
> Typical socialist rubbish that ignores the needs of the individual.
> 
> There's no intimidation like union intimidation.


Look at it the other way. You have employees who are members of a union. The membership was balloted for industrial action. The ballot is in favour of industrial action. 

Tom, Dick and Harry are going to be on strike on Thuirsday. Mary, who's employed on the same terms and conditions and is also a member of the union comes along and says "Actually, I'd like a day's paid leave instead."

You're the employer. You need staff working at that level on that day. Are you going to say "Fine, off you go, have a nice day?"

The guidance on annual leave and the like is coming from the employers, for perfectly valid reasons. I don't know what the unions are saying about it. 

Ron Burgundy's situation is different since he's not a member of the union. I think it's inappropriate that he be pressurised when he has made that conscious decision.


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2009)

Dreamerb said:


> You're the employer. You need staff working at that level on that day. Are you going to say "Fine, off you go, have a nice day?"



Yes, that’s exactly what I’d say.
I would see someone who had the conviction to stand up for what they believe to be right thing.


----------



## bamboozle (23 Feb 2009)

shesells said:


> My friend on €20k a year loses a day's pay to strike next week cos he feels he'll be letting himself down if he doesn't. He can't afford this exta levy, only took the job in the first place because of the benefits despite the poor salary. Now he loses more of his salary for the same benefits he was always going to get.


 

has this person any ambition in life or is he/she content with spending 40 years in a job they have no interest in apart from the pension and job security? 
it makes me sick, the latest excuse the public servants are peddling about 'only going into the public service for job security and pension'
anyone who shows such limited & myopic ambition does not deserve to be kept in employment.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (23 Feb 2009)

bamboozle said:


> has this person any ambition in life or is he/she content with spending 40 years in a job they have no interest in apart from the pension and job security?
> *it makes me sick, the latest excuse the public servants are peddling about 'only going into the public service for job security and pension'*
> *anyone who shows such limited & myopic ambition does not deserve to be kept in employment*.


 
Well they don't go in for the amazing pay........


----------



## Dreamerb (23 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> Yes, that’s exactly what I’d say.
> I would see someone who had the conviction to stand up for what they believe to be right thing.


Taking leave so as not to pass a picket placed by your co-workers doesn't sound to me like having "the conviction to stand up for what they believe to be the right thing." 

It sounds far more like wanting to avoid displaying any conviction at all.


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2009)

Dreamerb said:


> Taking leave so as not to pass a picket placed by your co-workers doesn't sound to me like having "the conviction to stand up for what they believe to be the right thing."
> 
> It sounds far more like wanting to avoid displaying any conviction at all.



To me it’s just trying to limit the amount of bullying and intimidation they will face from the foot soldiers of the Bearded Brethren.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (23 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> To me it’s just trying to limit the amount of bullying and intimidation they will face from the foot soldiers of the Bearded Brethren.


 
Quite quite true.


----------



## becky (23 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> But a sick cert is. I'm out anyway as i'm having an operation.


 
Sick certs are of course acceptable. Trying to plan your sugery around days of a strike would be very difficult. That said the 'true union nuts' would expect you to carry your own leg around. 

For me the issue is quite simple - either you're in the union or you're not. If you don't agree with the stance - leave. 

I for one did not agree with public servants ever getting bonuses. I toyed with leaving the union and didn't and I was happy enough to accept the pay awards and benchmarking at the time.

We have not mandated our union for industrial action to date.  I don't believe that unions leaders are too keen on PS's going to the gate. That said a few strikes will save a good few bob.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (23 Feb 2009)

I've already said if there are more strike days i'll moonwalk across any picket line. Anything to annoy them even more !!!


----------



## becky (23 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> I've already said if there are more strike days i'll moonwalk across any picket line. Anything to annoy them even more !!!


 
? anymore strike days. There hasn't been many strikes in the last 10 years. I have been working 20 years in the HSE and never been on strike. When the nurses were out in 1998 we got word from our own union that it was in order for us to pass the pickets. 

The IMO and the PNA are the only unions in the HSE AFAIK voting on whether to go on industrial action. The rest of the unions are meeting on it tomorrow.


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2009)

becky said:


> ? anymore strike days. There hasn't been many strikes in the last 10 years.


Why would there have been any strikes; the unions have effectively been running the country for the last 10 years.


----------



## Complainer (23 Feb 2009)

becky said:


> I'm aware that many people join a union because they feel they have to.


Where or when has this happened in the last 20 years?


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2009)

Complainer said:


> Where or when has this happened in the last 20 years?



I can think of one company (it's south of Dublin and it is closing down at the moment)


----------



## Observer (24 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Fight for ?? They get a raise through the social partners like all workers.


And just who do you think negotiates the wages increases in the social partnership increases?   Do you think the employers give wage increases out of the goodness of their hearts?


----------



## Purple (24 Feb 2009)

All employees don’t get pay increases through social partnership, indeed according to the Irish Independent two thirds of companies plan to reduce wages this year (and that forecast was made last December, before things got really bad).
What national wage agreements have done is seek to break the link between your economic value to your employer, the pay level for a particular role as determined by the market (keep increasing pay ‘till all the jobs are filled with the right people) and the employers ability to pay (be that employer a shop or the state).
There is no way it couldn’t have damaged the country.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (24 Feb 2009)

Complainer said:


> Where or when has this happened in the last 20 years?


 
Well in my dept for a start. I asked a number of people why they joined and they said they felt they had to. More said "ah sure i don't want to cross a picket line "


----------



## redstar (24 Feb 2009)

Excuse my simple ignorance, but I cannot see how public sector strike action can do any good whatsover to help solve the economic crisis.

For example the union representing workers in social welfare offices have voted to go on strike. Please tell me how shutting down dole offices to the most vulnerable in society is fair and an effective way of protesting against the Govt ?

This kind of action is bullying and akin to blackmail - with the unemployed as hostages held by the union until they get what they want for THEIR members.

On a related point, I wonder how many people would have turned up at last Sats march if no penson levy had been introduced.

It all makes sense when you consider that the unions are just doing what all other sectional interests do - farmers, consultants, developers, taxi drivers etc ... Shout and protest until the Govt gives in and to hell with the rest.


----------



## Purple (24 Feb 2009)

redstar said:


> On a related point, I wonder how many people would have turned up at last Sats march if no penson levy had been introduced.


 On a related point, since the Gardai were marching and they calculated the numbers I wonder how many people actually marched?


----------



## Complainer (24 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Well in my dept for a start. I asked a number of people why they joined and they said they felt they had to. More said "ah sure i don't want to cross a picket line "



They really need to grow a pair, don't they? If we were in a "UK miners strike" environment, with mobs roaring about scabs on the picket like, I can understand this view, but this hasn't happened in Ireland in 20 years, so unless you have some information about actual intimidation happening, they would be well advised to grow up. I find it strange that you interpret "ah sure i don't want to cross a picket line" as being the result of some kind of intimidation or threats. I would interpret this as a statement of solidarity with their colleagues.



redstar said:


> Excuse my simple ignorance, but I cannot see how public sector strike action can do any good whatsover to help solve the economic crisis.


What else can the union do? If the Govt won't listen at the negotiating table, the union have few other options when faced with a fundamentally unfair action (the pension levy) but to take industrial action. 



redstar said:


> For example the union representing workers in social welfare offices have voted to go on strike. Please tell me how shutting down dole offices to the most vulnerable in society is fair and an effective way of protesting against the Govt ?
> 
> This kind of action is bullying and akin to blackmail - with the unemployed as hostages held by the union until they get what they want for THEIR members.


I agree that there should be no disruption to social welfare, and indeed I spoke at my union branch AGM recommending that front line services be considered as emergency services not to be interrupted by any industrial action.


----------



## dockingtrade (24 Feb 2009)

Complainer said:


> indeed I spoke at my union branch AGM recommending that front line services be considered as emergency services not to be interrupted by any industrial action.


 

out of interest are any union members questioning fat cat union leader salaries, expenses and directors fees?


----------



## Ron Burgundy (24 Feb 2009)

Complainer said:


> They really need to grow a pair, don't they? If we were in a "UK miners strike" environment, with mobs roaring about scabs on the picket like, I can understand this view, but this hasn't happened in Ireland in 20 years, so unless you have some information about actual intimidation happening, they would be well advised to grow up. I find it strange that you interpret "ah sure i don't want to cross a picket line" as being the result of some kind of intimidation or threats. *I would interpret this as a statement of solidarity with their colleagues *.



Think what ya like, i know what was said to me......i'll interpret it as baaaa baaa baaa.....i'm a sheep


----------



## DavyJones (24 Feb 2009)

I am no fan of unions but they have a place in our society, standing together is a natural human instinct.

  My problem with unions is that they are far too powerful. This brings me to the crux of my concern. They are too powerful because the people who govern you and me are weak. We should stop complaining about public service and unions. All these organisations were allowed/funded to grow out of control. The people hired to run the country failed miserably.  Our government have  a responsibility  to protect our state from harm, they didn’t.. My anger lies with them.


----------



## Complainer (24 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> ..i'll interpret it as baaaa baaa baaa.....i'm a sheep


This says a lot more about the individuals in question than it does about the trade union movement.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (24 Feb 2009)

Complainer said:


> This says a lot more about the individuals in question than it does about the trade union movement.



Well like it or not they are the union movement......

Q. Why are you striking ??

A. Ah sure ya have to.......

This is the mentality you are dealing with, monkeys with votes. Or should that be sheep, baaa baaa baaa.


----------



## S.L.F (24 Feb 2009)

I would love to know why public and civil service employees have been singled out for this pension levy.

They aren't the ones who caused this economic mess.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (24 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> I would love to know why public and civil service employees have been singled out for this pension levy.
> 
> They aren't the ones who caused this economic mess.



Its a pension levy in name only. Its wage cut plain and simple.


----------



## zephyro (25 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> I would love to know why public and civil service employees have been singled out for this pension levy.



Presumeably because their pensions are vastly superior to those in the private sector.



S.L.F said:


> They aren't the ones who caused this economic mess.



True, but they benefitted greatly during the preceding boom.


----------



## DublinTexas (25 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Its a pension levy in name only. Its wage cut plain and simple.


 
Our goverment in it's wisdom has deceided that a wage cut is bad because it means that existing pensioners will get less too and future pensions will be lower too. And if I get it right their pensions also would be affected, what less money to berti? No Way!

So they needed a way arround that to not upset one of their best voting folk so they deceided let's call it a pension levy.

But as usualy it was not thought through, first is was on gross than on net salary and than they found if it is for their pension, than we need to give them tax credit too.

So instead of coming up with a fair balanced approach (which values the guarenteed pension to a certain amount to be invested and than split it in something like a 60/40 way) they have deceided just to TAX. This is nothing else than a TAX.

I'm all for streamlining the public service and making them pay for their pensions (in fact I might be one of the loudest complainers about it) but come on, this levy is not fair implemented.

Now don't get me wrong I have no sympathy for overpaid civil servants bringing in 100,000 € a year for messing up our country but you can' throw the whole public sector in one boot.

There are a lot of areas where we immedialty could cut back and others where we could streamline.

But please call the big white elephant in the room a big white elephant and not a "large white object that might move" as with this TAX.


----------



## Caveat (25 Feb 2009)

jaybird said:


> ...He might have found not many people sitting next to him in the canteen afterwards...


 
So you don't think that this type of exclusion in itself is a form of bullying?

I would say the handbooks of the HSE, County Councils and state depts would think so.


----------



## Caveat (25 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> They aren't the ones who caused this economic mess.


 
Generally speaking no. But then again, generally speaking, the private sector did not cause it either.

Anyway it's not the point at all. The government pays the public sector wage bill and they now can't afford to. Simple as that. So the workers are being asked to contribute more towards their pension.

Private sector companies who can't afford wage bills are cutting pay, letting people go or closing altogether.


----------



## Caveat (25 Feb 2009)

jaybird said:


> I certainly don't consider it bullying.


 
OK,  but as I said (and assuming you are employed by the public sector) your employer would differ with you on this.


----------



## S.L.F (25 Feb 2009)

Caveat said:


> So the workers are being asked to contribute more towards their pension.


 
You are totally incorrect about this.

The Pension Levy is just a tax there is no benefit to Public Servants whatsoever if you read the legislation you will see this for yourself.

Do you think it is fair that 350,000 people should be singled out for this tax?


----------



## Caveat (25 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> ...there is no benefit to Public Servants whatsoever...


 
I never implied there was a benefit. I don't understand your point. 



> Do you think it is fair that 350,000 people should be singled out for this tax?


 
What do you mean by 'singled out'? 

Fair doesn't come into it I'm afraid.  It is what it is.  Would you have the government borrow more money instead?  Because that's the only alternative as far as I can see.


----------



## MissRibena (25 Feb 2009)

I just think we should have a level playing field.  As far as I can see the reason there's a levy is because the unions couldn't countenance direct cuts in wages, which would have been the most straightforward approach.  Or they could have used benefit-in-kind on flexi-time or holiday allowances above 20 days or all defined benefit pensions.  Or both/combination.  If it wouldn't have taken forever and a huge number of consultants to figure out, I'd suggest that they could have even benchmarked it to the private sector but you don't hear too many unions looking for that at the moment.


----------



## S.L.F (25 Feb 2009)

Caveat said:


> I never implied there was a benefit. I don't understand your point. .


 
You said the Public servants are being asked to contribute more towards their pensions but this levy is not being used for the pensions 



Caveat said:


> What do you mean by 'singled out'? .


 
If 1 section of the work force is hit by a tax and nobody else is then they are being singled out.



Caveat said:


> Fair doesn't come into it I'm afraid. It is what it is. Would you have the government borrow more money instead? Because that's the only alternative as far as I can see.


 
I would have preferred if our govt had put some thought into shoreing up resources for the coming months instead of blowing them all to make their developer friends richer.

I would have preferred it if they hadn't wasted billions on the failed decentralisation.

Or how about not to have dropped income taxes so much.

In order to make ends meet they should raise everyones taxes.

Personally I can't understand why the Greens are still in govt with FF, if they had an ounce of credibility they would pull out of govt and call a general election.


----------



## DavyJones (25 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Y
> 
> If 1 section of the work force is hit by a tax and nobody else is then they are being singled out.




Singled out? What about all the pay cuts, redundancies, three day weeks? that nearly the whole country is facing.


----------



## Caveat (25 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> You said the Public servants are being asked to contribute more towards their pensions but this levy is not being used for the pensions


 
Yes, I understand your point but I don't think it really matters at the end of the day - they are coughing up less money for their employees, which is the point of the 'levy'.  I do agree that the whole 'levy' aspect was pretty spineless on the govt's part though.

I must make a hefty contribution towards my own private pension - the pension itself is not indexed and it is a meagre one.  If I had to pay more because my employer was in financial difficulty I would accept it. I certainly would not consider it a reason to strike.



> If 1 section of the work force is hit by a tax and nobody else is then they are being singled out.


 
Well they don't have to pay me so I shouldn't be affected - likewise many others. That's the way I see it.



> I would have preferred if our govt had put some thought into shoreing up resources for the coming months instead of blowing them all to make their developer friends richer.
> 
> I would have preferred it if they hadn't wasted billions on the failed decentralisation.
> 
> ...


 
...and I don't disagree with any of that.


----------



## Dreamerb (25 Feb 2009)

Caveat said:


> OK, but as I said (and assuming you are employed by the public sector) your employer would differ with you on this.


If it were an organised exclusion / boycott, that would be valid - and yes, that would probably constitute harassment.

If, however, it were simply a matter of some colleagues - without collusion - not socialising with others because they disagree with them then there's no recourse. Only if collusion comes into it could you invoke anti-bullying codes.

Employers can't force their employees to like each other...

I have no idea who of my colleagues are on strike tomorrow, and I doubt everyone in the relevant grades will be. I very much hope that our workplace atmosphere will not be affected over the coming weeks, because it's usually good and I'd hate to see that sort of bitterness develop.


----------



## Caveat (25 Feb 2009)

Dreamerb said:


> If it were an organised exclusion / boycott, that would be valid - and yes, that would probably constitute harassment.
> 
> If, however, it were simply a matter of some colleagues - without collusion - not socialising with others because they disagree with them then there's no recourse. Only if collusion comes into it could you invoke anti-bullying codes.


 
Sounds right _Dreamerb_, and I don't want to go on about it, but I would think it would be very difficult for collusion _not_ to come into it.  

Not everyone is going to know who the individual is or whether or not they crossed the line.  All it would take is someone to say "Don't sit with him - he crossed the picket line", a scenario which I could almost guarantee would occur at least once.  Proving it of course, would be difficult.


----------



## S.L.F (25 Feb 2009)

DavyJones said:


> Singled out? What about all the pay cuts, redundancies, three day weeks? that nearly the whole country is facing.


 
Yes but this is different the private sector is goverened by market forces.

Public service is not goverened by market forces.

Our govt has singled our public servants for this they could have said this was a pay cut if they had a pair of brass ones but did not.



Caveat said:


> I must make a hefty contribution towards my own private pension - the pension itself is not indexed and it is a meagre one. If I had to pay more because my employer was in financial difficulty I would accept it. I certainly would not consider it a reason to strike.


 
Ah now I see your point but you are still incorrect.

The only people who get super duper pensions are the ones who are in public service for 40 years (or get to be a politician).

If you are only in public service a few years and will be retiring in 20 years then you will need a second pension otherwise you will not have enough to survive.


----------



## DavyJones (25 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Yes but this is different the private sector is goverened by market forces.
> 
> Public service is not goverened by market forces.
> 
> Our govt has singled our public servants for this they could have said this was a pay cut if they had a pair of brass ones but did not.




Market force dictates how much money the exchequer makes. This money pays for our services. We don't have the money to pay, simple as.

I have to take a pay cut, not that I earned a whole lot to began with. Why should some sectors be immune to the pain?


----------



## Pique318 (25 Feb 2009)

DavyJones said:


> Why should some sectors be immune to the pain?



Because...just because, OK ?

Just accept the fact that Public Service workers should not have to shoulder ANY of the burden of reconciling the exchequer figures and it'll be a whole lot nicer in this thread.


----------



## Caveat (25 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> The only people who get super duper pensions are the ones who are in public service for 40 years (or get to be a politician).


 
I'm not talking about super duper pensions, just pensions.



> If you are only in public service a few years and will be retiring in 20 years then you will need a second pension otherwise you will not have enough to survive.


 
I'm in the same boat - and I have to pay more of a contribution than our striking friends.


----------



## ludermor (25 Feb 2009)

jaybird said:


> I think thats realy quite unfair to the majority of union members. If you join the union, you agree to abide by majority ballots. If strike action is ballotted, you can vote against it. If you are in the minority, you can choose, abide my the wishes of the majority, or leave the union. What you can't do is have it both ways.
> 
> I saw a strike upfront fairly recently. I saw a worker cross a picket line, and I can assure you that he was not subject to any bullying or intimidation of any kind. He might have found not many people sitting next to him in the canteen afterwards, but not a thing was said to him about his own personal decision. I think you'll find that most union workers will respect any person who stands up for his own convictions, which ever side they may be on. What does not garner respect is skulking around trying not to draw attention to yourself.


With regards to building sites you are wrong on all counts. You have to be a member of a union to work on union jobs ( which all jobs are supposed to be) You cannot choose to leave the union, if you do you have to leave the site. 
The last builders strike i can remember not ony were workers warned from not crossing the picket, there was treats (verbal and physical) against those who did and i am talking about first hand experience. there were rentamobs sent to various different high profile sites that were notmember of the unions or even worked on sites and all they did was abuse any who crossed the line


----------



## S.L.F (25 Feb 2009)

DavyJones said:


> Market force dictates how much money the exchequer makes. This money pays for our services. We don't have the money to pay, simple as.
> 
> I have to take a pay cut, not that I earned a whole lot to began with. Why should some sectors be immune to the pain?


 
I'm in the same boat as you I have taken a serious hit in the last few months, things not good at all.

I know a few Public Sector workers and the general thought process is that this levy burden has not been spread out evenly.

If it was evenly spread then there would not be so much opposition to it.


----------



## DavyJones (25 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> I know a few Public Sector workers and the general thought process is that this levy burden has not been spread out evenly.
> 
> If it was evenly spread then there would not be so much opposition to it.



Who can you or I moan to about pay cuts? Where can I go on a rally and protest the circumstances that I am being dragging into?


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2009)

DavyJones said:


> Market force dictates how much money the exchequer makes. This money pays for our services. We don't have the money to pay, simple as.


well said; that's the bottom line.


----------



## DublinTexas (25 Feb 2009)

Well while we think we'll go on strike other do and outrages enough the Social Welfare Local Offices will be closed tommorrow, so if you are trying to sign up to the life register, stay at home no way.

According to what I read in Revenue and Socal Welfare Local Offices will be closed and phone services will be unavailable to them.

There we go, what a targeted approach, hit the poorest and at the same time make sure the incoming arm is also down.

Wonderfull, let the summer of content start.


----------



## becky (25 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> I would love to know why public and civil service employees have been singled out for this pension levy.
> 
> They aren't the ones who caused this economic mess.


 
I've started calling a public sector levy as to me this is what it is.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2009)

becky said:


> I've started calling a public sector levy as to me this is what it is.



I agree, it is a public sector levy. It's a pay cut and it is targeted at the public sector. The reason for this is that the state cannot afford to pay its employees and needs to cut back. Nothing else matters in this context. Yes, government ministers should take big pay cuts to lead by example. Yes, they should not get the big pensions they get while still sitting in the Dail. Yes, the bankers who cause this should be brought to book and anyone who broke the law should spend decades in prison. Yes, tax exiles should be taxed and if they don’t want to pay Irish taxes, then they should give up their Irish citizenship (and this should apply to all Irish citizens)... all of these things should happen as well but none of them will save the money the country needs to save. That’s the bottom line. People need to have the maturity ad intellect to separate economic issues from societal issues about fairness and justice. Both need to happen but for different reasons.


----------



## Complainer (25 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> This is the mentality you are dealing with, monkeys with votes. Or should that be sheep, baaa baaa baaa.


Being personally abusive about people generally isn't conducive to rational debate. Try having some manners.



zephyro said:


> Presumeably because their pensions are vastly superior to those in the private sector.


Try telling that to a CO who will get little or no public service pension above the standard old age pension.



zephyro said:


> True, but they benefitted greatly during the preceding boom.


Depends on your definition of 'greatly'. Relative to the benefits that some received during the boom time, the benefits to most in the public sector have been very modest.



ludermor said:


> With regards to building sites you are wrong on all counts. You have to be a member of a union to work on union jobs ( which all jobs are supposed to be) You cannot choose to leave the union, if you do you have to leave the site.
> The last builders strike i can remember not ony were workers warned from not crossing the picket, there was treats (verbal and physical) against those who did and i am talking about first hand experience. there were rentamobs sent to various different high profile sites that were notmember of the unions or even worked on sites and all they did was abuse any who crossed the line


You're right - there was some particularly bitter and nasty stuff going on around these construction sites. They did have some valid points to protest about (remember Gama et al), but threats are never justified.


DavyJones said:


> Who can you or I moan to about pay cuts? Where can I go on a rally and protest the circumstances that I am being dragging into?


If you are not being treated fairly, you should have come along to the rally last Saturday.


DublinTexas said:


> Well while we think we'll go on strike other do and outrages enough the Social Welfare Local Offices will be closed tommorrow, so if you are trying to sign up to the life register, stay at home no way.
> 
> According to what I read in Revenue and Socal Welfare Local Offices will be closed and phone services will be unavailable to them.
> 
> There we go, what a targeted approach, hit the poorest and at the same time make sure the incoming arm is also down.


FYI, the PSEU are excluding social welfare offices from any strike action.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2009)

Complainer said:


> Depends on your definition of 'greatly'. Relative to the benefits that some received during the boom time, the benefits to most in the public sector have been very modest.


 Yes, but relative to the benefits that most public sector employees received during the boom those received by most of the private sector have been modest. That's what matters.


----------



## dockingtrade (26 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> If it was evenly spread then there would not be so much opposition to it.


 
Why didnt the unions negotiate this better? As Ive said before its easy say no and "they" are targeting ye!!

I put it to the members of unions to ask their leaders:

Why didnt ye negotiate and better spread of the pain.
Why are there such vast differences in wages in the Public sector.
Unions drove the pay rates and the money is being consumed at the middle to top.


----------



## DavyJones (26 Feb 2009)

Complainer said:


> If you are not being treated fairly, you should have come along to the rally last Saturday.



And what would I hope to achieve?
 We all have to understand the gravity of the situation we are in. the longer we allow it to drag on, the longer we all suffer as a result. Lets just all take our medicine and start moving toward recovery.

I am neither for or against any sector, most of us weren't part of the problem and some of us now find it unfair that we are part of the solution.
We need to face our new reality and work to make our state less debt ridden.


----------



## diarmuidc (26 Feb 2009)

​


			
				Complainer said:
			
		

> If you are not being treated fairly, you should have come along to the rally last Saturday.


I think most realise that the horse has bolted a long time ago with the tacit approval of the Irish electoral. We have a huge deficit thanks to a pro cyclical policies implemented by the Irish government over the past 5-8 years and now we are in a hole. Protesting is not going to make €10bn appear. The rest will express their displeasure via their vote next election, pity they didn't do it 2 elections ago.


----------



## S.L.F (26 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think Ill go on strike*



DavyJones said:


> Lets just all take our medicine and start moving toward recovery.



Unfortunately the medicine being given out comes from a quack.


----------



## dockingtrade (26 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think Ill go on strike*



S.L.F said:


> Unfortunately the medicine being given out comes from a quack.


 
If we dont swallow the pill the IMF will be here and then what 000s of public job cuts, spending cuts and we can strike away ... can the unions not see this. People think this levy is pain, well we're in for some shock. So unions be repsonsible accept the cuts and negotiaite how they happen


----------



## oldtimer (26 Feb 2009)

What is the story regarding TDs' who do not pass a picket (Sinn Fein etc to-day) - do they lose a days pay like the strikers?


----------



## S.L.F (26 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think Ill go on strike*



dockingtrade said:


> So unions be repsonsible accept the cuts and negotiaite how they happen


 
Something you have forgotten is that the govt walked away from the table not the unions.

Our govt put a deadline for the issues to be resolved and at the last minute put down the pension levy on the table.


----------



## S.L.F (26 Feb 2009)

oldtimer said:


> What is the story regarding TDs' who do not pass a picket (Sinn Fein etc to-day) - do they lose a days pay like the strikers?


 
They might lose a few hundred but will get a lot more respect.


----------



## Purple (26 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think Ill go on strike*



S.L.F said:


> Something you have forgotten is that the govt walked away from the table not the unions.
> 
> Our govt put a deadline for the issues to be resolved and at the last minute put down the pension levy on the table.


 Are you seriously suggesting that the unions were not aware that pay would be an issue?!


----------



## Purple (26 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> They might lose a few hundred but will get a lot more respect.


 They did it to be populist. That's all.


----------



## S.L.F (26 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that the unions were not aware that pay would be an issue?!


 
No but this has not been called a pay cut, they have called it a pension levy.

It is basically another tax soley aimed at public servants, it is wrong to single out some one and force them to pay extra tax.

The burden should be shouldered by all workers not just public servants.



Purple said:


> They did it to be populist. That's all.


 
'Populist' new word for me.

SF are in politics, what else would you expect them to do?


----------



## S.L.F (26 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think Ill go on strike*



dockingtrade said:


> If we dont swallow the pill the IMF will be here and then what 000s of public job cuts, spending cuts and we can strike away ... can the unions not see this. People think this levy is pain, well we're in for some shock. So unions be repsonsible accept the cuts and negotiaite how they happen


 
The big problem is the unions feel there is an easier pill to swallow than the one being shoved down their throats.


----------



## dockingtrade (26 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think Ill go on strike*



S.L.F said:


> The big problem is the unions feel there is an easier pill to swallow than the one being shoved down their throats.


 

Without any cuts in pay? and remeber 4 billion next year


----------



## S.L.F (26 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think Ill go on strike*



dockingtrade said:


> Without any cuts in pay?


 
This pension levy is not a cut in pay, it is another tax.

I've asked this questiion before but have't gotten an answer as of yet.

Why are public servants being singled out for this tax?


----------



## Complainer (26 Feb 2009)

DavyJones said:


> And what would I hope to achieve?


Perhaps you should have thought about this BEFORE you went looking for a protest, rather than after.


DavyJones said:


> Lets just all take our medicine and start moving toward recovery.


You've just put your finger on the problem. In the current environment, we aren't all taking our medicine. One subset has been singled out for treatment. The levy should be removed and replaced with a simple tax increase.


----------



## PaddyW (27 Feb 2009)

Public service seem to be divided in their opinion on this pension levy. Some say it's a tax, others a pay cut. Should ye not all decide on which it is before you go a-marching?

If any of you want to swap jobs with me, I will gladly do so. Job security, nice pension at the end (tax, pay cut, I'll take them all because at the end of the day, I'm still in a job). And that's what I'll be getting. You can have my rapidly falling pension, my 59 hour working week, the uncertainty of whether you will still be working a few months down the line. Form an orderly queue please.


----------



## PaddyW (27 Feb 2009)

And before you all go flinging daggers at me, I have stated before that cuts (and taxes) should be across the board. That includes everyone, irresepective of job or status.


----------



## Complainer (27 Feb 2009)

PaddyW said:


> Public service seem to be divided in their opinion on this pension levy. Some say it's a tax, others a pay cut. Should ye not all decide on which it is before you go a-marching?


Does it really matter what its called? The net effect is still the same. This attempt to create an argement where none exists wouldn't be a diversionary tactic, by any chance?


PaddyW said:


> If any of you want to swap jobs with me, I will gladly do so. Job security, nice pension at the end (tax, pay cut, I'll take them all because at the end of the day, I'm still in a job). And that's what I'll be getting. You can have my rapidly falling pension, my 59 hour working week, the uncertainty of whether you will still be working a few months down the line. Form an orderly queue please.


If your pension is still falling, it is because you are choosing to keep it in an equity fund. If you want it to stop falling, move it to a cash or guaranteed fund. I don't recall too many complaints about the 10%-15% p.a. growth in equities in the good times! Presumably (like me) you are opting to keep your funds in equities in the expectation of a recovery in the markets at some stage. If the risk of equities is too much for you, move to cash - but please don't keep whinging about the nature of equity markets. They go up and down - surprise eh?

Funny how this idea of moving into the public sector wasn't so popular 2-3 years ago? You had your chance to swap in the good times, when there was a fair bit of public sector recruitment going on. Mind you, it was still extremely competitive, so not everyone would make the grade of course. There weren't too many people who (like me) took substantial salary cuts to move from private to public sector, with the payback being more civilised working hours and the contracted pension entitlements. Now my employer is renaiging on that contract, and making now attempt to spread the pain fairly. So why didn't you swap to the public sector 2-3 years ago?


----------



## PaddyW (27 Feb 2009)

Honestly, I have no official qualifications (I know I really should have, that's a story for a different day). I got this job straight from work, so it's pretty much what I know. I doubt, if I had applied for public service work, that I would have been accepted. I may be wrong on this, but that was just my feeling on the matter. Better the devil you know and all that. And I would have moved if I could, I was looking for a job in the ps closer to home, but the ones that were available were specialised, so there was no point in me even considering them. Aside from that, if I had got a job in the ps and was working there now, I would have accepted this pension levy without much hassle.

As regards the pension, and I am not whinging on this, I'm still only 27, so moving to cash now would probably be counter productive . Just trying to point out I guess, that many people in the private sector are feeling this pain. I never experienced those 10-15% equity growths, strangely enough (must have a word with the pensions man on that one!).


----------



## dockingtrade (27 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think Ill go on strike*



S.L.F said:


> The big problem is the unions feel there is an easier pill to swallow than the one being shoved down their throats.


 
I'll re-phrase my question. Does the easier pill involve pay cuts? (and bare in mind the need for 4bn cuts next year)


----------



## dockingtrade (27 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think Ill go on strike*



S.L.F said:


> I've asked this questiion before but have't gotten an answer as of yet.
> 
> Why are public servants being singled out for this tax?


 
Because they cant lose their job, and there isnt enough money to pay them!!!
How do the private sector handle single someone out??? redundancy!!!

You cannot compare the 2 sectors. The only way you can compare both sectors if there are widespread redundancies in the public sector.Then you can complain about being targeted.


----------



## Complainer (27 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think Ill go on strike*



dockingtrade said:


> You cannot compare the 2 sectors. The only way you can compare both sectors if there are widespread redundancies in the public sector.Then you can complain about being targeted.


Check out what's been happening in Bus Eireann, Dublin Bus, Combat Poverty Agency, every local authority in the country - widespread job cuts indeed - so now I have your permission to complain - right?


----------



## JP1234 (27 Feb 2009)

> The only way you can compare both sectors if there are widespread redundancies in the public sector.Then you can complain about being targeted.



What about the many many thousands of private sector workers who are sitting cosily unaffected, no pay cut, no short time working, when are they going to be "targeted" and do their bit/share the pain etc.  I do have some sympathy for the public sector workers as every one of them is going to be losing pay while this is clearly not the case in the private sector.

For the record I do not and never have worked in the public sector, I am a private sector worker currently suffering a 40% pay cut due to a short working week. Meanwhile my 3 work colleagues, who already earn more than me remain in full time work on full pay.They have absolutely nothing to complain about - but it doesn't stop them!


----------



## Complainer (27 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think Ill go on strike*



PaddyW said:


> As regards the pension, and I am not whinging on this, I'm still only 27, so moving to cash now would probably be counter productive . Just trying to point out I guess, that many people in the private sector are feeling this pain. I never experienced those 10-15% equity growths, strangely enough (must have a word with the pensions man on that one!).


So its ok for you to moan about your pension losses that arise from your chosen investment strategy, but it is not ok for me to moan about an imposed and unbalanced cut? Nice balanced view there, my friend.


----------



## PaddyW (27 Feb 2009)

Where did I moan about my pension losses? Could you point that out to me, because I can't see it, my friend.


----------



## Caveat (27 Feb 2009)

JP1234 said:


> What about the many many thousands of private sector workers who are sitting cosily unaffected, no pay cut, no short time working, when are they going to be "targeted" and do their bit/share the pain etc. I do have some sympathy for the public sector workers as every one of them is going to be losing pay while this is clearly not the case in the private sector.


 
What on earth is this obsession with being "targeted" ??

The government pays public sector wages. The government do not have enough money. Therefore public sector workers are affected.

I and many others are paid by our own private employers. Currently, my employer can afford the pay/benefits I have enjoyed up to now - if they couldn't afford it I would (like many) obviously have to take a pay cut or worse - which as has been pointed out many many times, is happening all over the country already. The government does not have to pay private sector workers so why should they be affected? 

There is no "targeting". It's very simple.

Put it this way - if, for argument's sake the SFA or some group met and decided on a recommendation that all SMEs should reduce the contribution they make to their employees pensions, and this recommendation was taken up across the board - would it be thought that this group was being "targeted"? 

I doubt it.


----------



## JP1234 (27 Feb 2009)

> What on earth is this obsession with being "targeted" ??


um No obession here, it's the first comment I have posted about the matter so I hope you were generalising there!

My point was simply that I am sick to my eye teeth of reading/hearing the argument that "the private sector are suffering" - parts of it are, parts of it are not, even within individual companies ( such as where I work) there is no fair share of the burden, meanwhile, almost all public sector workers are going to suffer a reduction in their take home pay. They have good reason to complain, in my opinion. 

Good luck to you and anyone who has managed to keep hold of a full time job, but believe me it is hard not to feel slightly bitter and yes, _targeted_, when I look around and see, as in my place of work, dozens of people let go, or on short hours and the next minute a new member of management is appointed on a 40K salary, or my co - worker spending probably an hour of her day chatting on the phone to her mum/sister/boyfriend or more time surfing the web and then turning round and slagging off people for striking or marching.  The hypocrisy of some in the private sector is quite nauseating at times. ( for the record I am not referring to anyone here, I could weep listening to some people in my workplace though!)


----------



## Caveat (27 Feb 2009)

JP1234 said:


> um No obession here, it's the first comment I have posted about the matter so I hope you were generalising there!


 
Yes.  Not directed at you in particular - but the word has been invoked a number of times on this site already.



> Good luck to you and anyone who has managed to keep hold of a full time job, but believe me it is hard not to feel slightly bitter and yes, _targeted_, when I look around and see, as in my place of work, dozens of people let go, or on short hours and the next minute a new member of management is appointed on a 40K salary, or my co - worker spending probably an hour of her day chatting on the phone to her mum/sister/boyfriend or more time surfing the web


 
I'm sorry but based on this, and the fact that you have said that you do not work in the public sector, I don't understand why you, personally feel targeted.


----------



## JP1234 (27 Feb 2009)

> I'm sorry but based on this, and the fact that you have said that you do not work in the public sector, I don't understand why you, personally feel targeted.


Well, I don't want to get into all my personal details but I work in a small department of 5 (including my manager)  the majority of my work involves things that really should be done each day, my personal workload hasn't really reduced, I earn quite a bit less than the others but I am the only one who has been put on short time. The girl who spends time chatting/surfing is the one who's workload is most reduced, and it's not as if she is even covering my work for me, complaining it is "unfair" she should be asked to take it on!, another colleague is the offspring of the owner of the company rolleyes: `nuff said) and the third person genuinely has a huge workload which she struggles to cope with and I was taking on some of her work for her. That's why I personally feel a bit targeted, there are 2 others in my department who could and should be on reduced hours if we were truly "sharing the burden"  but it is something I intend to discuss with my manager at our performance review next month in the presence of our HR officer) When I was told I was going on short time my manager actually used the words "everyone is affected" and "it's important we all pull together"......

My feelings on the whole situation really aren't based on the public/private sector debate, though as I said I do see the public sectors point, but rather the inequality within the private sector when it comes to taking pay cuts and so on which seems to be getting overlooked - maybe I am in the wrong thread for this discussion, I couldn't see one that dealt with it though - apologies for taking it OT


----------



## PaddyW (27 Feb 2009)

You are being treated unfairly, from my point of view, but this is something you will need to take up direct with the manager. Maybe there are other factors upon which they based their decisions regarding you? I really don't know.


----------



## diarmuidc (27 Feb 2009)

Caveat said:


> What on earth is this obsession with being "targeted" ??
> 
> The government pays public sector wages. The government do not have enough money. Therefore public sector workers are affected.



Stop making sense. 

This type of logical thinking doesn't fit into the new "fairness" mantra of the unions.


----------



## Teatime (27 Feb 2009)

Caveat said:


> What on earth is this obsession with being "targeted" ??
> 
> The government pays public sector wages. The government do not have enough money. Therefore public sector workers are affected.
> 
> There is no "targeting". It's very simple.


 
Yeah I suppose it is that simple to the tune of €20 billion. Despite the levy I think the majority of the private sector would jump at the chance of a public sector job right now.


----------



## Complainer (27 Feb 2009)

PaddyW said:


> Where did I moan about my pension losses? Could you point that out to me, because I can't see it, my friend.


Here "You can have my rapidly falling pension"



Caveat said:


> What on earth is this obsession with being "targeted" ??
> 
> The government pays public sector wages. The government do not have enough money. Therefore public sector workers are affected.
> 
> ...


While technically correct, this of course is misleading and inaccurate by virtue of not looking at the full picture. The Govt provides public services. It funds this service through tax. It brings in enough tax to fund the necessary services. It is able to adjust taxation levels to bring in tax through different channels, given that the Govt policies have ensured that property-related taxes have dried up.


Teatime said:


> Despite the levy I think the majority of the private sector would jump at the chance of a public sector job right now.


Why didn't they jump at this chance last year, or the previous year?


dockingtrade said:


> Does the easier pill involve pay cuts? (and bare in mind the need for 4bn cuts next year)


No-one is disputing the need for tax increases. The right-wing media (O'Reilly, Murdoch, the ex-PD club of Geraldine Kennedy and Stephen Collins at the Irish Times) has been spinning wildly the myth that the ICTU/Labour/FG haven't been offering solutions, but this of course is fiction. All those parties have offered solutions involving a range of cuts and tax increases.


PaddyW said:


> Honestly, I have no official qualifications (I know I really should have, that's a story for a different day). I got this job straight from work, so it's pretty much what I know. I doubt, if I had applied for public service work, that I would have been accepted. I may be wrong on this, but that was just my feeling on the matter. Better the devil you know and all that. And I would have moved if I could, I was looking for a job in the ps closer to home, but the ones that were available were specialised, so there was no point in me even considering them.


Well boo hoo hoo! Is this the Celtic Tiger generation that expects the exact job to suit their qualifications and location to be served up to them on the silver platter so they can take the job without leaving the couch? Maybe you should have done what I and many of my colleagues did and studied at night to get the relevant qualifications? Maybe you should have taken a job that isn't in your exact location? I have colleagues commuting into Dublin from south Wicklow, from Dundalk, from Tullamore to keep their jobs. If you really wanted a public sector job, it was there for the taking - but you need to do the work.

By the way, does your 59 hour week include the time spent posting on AAM?


----------



## liaconn (28 Feb 2009)

Teatime said:


> Yeah I suppose it is that simple to the tune of €20 billion. Despite the levy I think the majority of the private sector would jump at the chance of a public sector job right now.


 
Presumably  many of the same people who thought a public sector job  wasn't good enough for them, this time last year. We just can't win. When times are good we're unambitious dullards who won't take a chance in life. When times are hard we're jammy beggars who have it all sewn up.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (28 Feb 2009)

liaconn said:


> Presumably  many of the same people who thought a public sector job  wasn't good enough for them, this time last year. *We just can't win. When times are good we're unambitious dullards who won't take a chance in life. When times are hard we're jammy beggars who have it all sewn up*.



How true.


----------



## PaddyW (28 Feb 2009)

Complainer said:


> Here "You can have my rapidly falling pension"
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, does your 59 hour week include the time spent posting on AAM?



I said rapidly falling pension. I did not moan, I am fully aware that investment involves risks and that this is part of it.

I post on here as I am allowed do so. I do all my work first and when I have the time I post here. I would have more work to do, only it seems that we're in a recession, hence less work.


----------

