If we want to find scapegoats in the current climate, we need to look much higher up.
I've already answered this question in my earlier posts, and just in case you missed it, my answer was not 'no cuts'. If you really are interested in my answer, feel free to go back and read my earlier posts. If you'd prefer to target one particular group of employees in an almost racist manner, keep on going...Rubbish. So what do you think is fair... no cuts??
Another great example of criticising those on one side of debate for something they didn't say. Louise (not my favourite union official, it has to be said) didn't say this, so please don't exaggerate.You would certainly never find any private sector worker earning less than 60K
I've already answered this question in my earlier posts, and just in case you missed it, my answer was not 'no cuts'. If you really are interested in my answer, feel free to go back and read my earlier posts. If you'd prefer to target one particular group of employees in an almost racist manner, keep on going...
Louise (not my favourite union official, it has to be said) didn't say this, so please don't exaggerate.
Your opening sentence on this thread was "they are acting irresponsibly in not accepting that a cut in public sector pay" - if that's not targeting public sector workers, I don't know what is.I never targeted the ps workers. I was talking about the unions approach to this mess, so read my posts.
When I look at the official statements of the unions, I don't see any 'causing the divide'. I see many attempts to bring together public and private sector workers to ensure that those who can best afford to contribute to getting us out of the mess created by the bankers/builders/bowsies(FF) pay their fair share.My point was its the unions themselves causing the devide, by using the word DEVASTATION for a levy when 000s are losing thier jobs, thats is angering people, fair play to anyone in a job and who can keep a job.
Perception is reality. That's exactly how it feels to be a public servant over the last 3-6 months.And your use of words like "spite" and "racism" are way out of order.
No indeed, €60k is hardly poor, but yet again, that's not what she said. €60k isn't poor, but it isn't rich either. The issue is not really about how the 8% cut compares against those who have lost their jobs or are on short time. The issue is about how the 8% compares against those who are still working away quietly at the same or better salary than last year, keeping very quiet about it, and thanking Christ that they don't work in the public sector.No, of course she didn't say this and I never suggested that she did. I don't know where "exaggeration" comes into it.
She said what I quoted in my post.
'Less than 60K' is hardly poor - but she seemed to be using the figure to suggest that these people cannot afford the reduction in take home pay that the levy results in. My point is that many private sector workers are on less that 60K and they have taken hits in the form of redundancies, 3 or 4 day weeks, 10%+ reductions in salaries etc.
My interpretation of her comment was that we are supposed to feel empathy or sympathy for these people because they are on 'less than 60K' - or else why make the comment?
Or can you maybe hazard a guess as to the point of her example of the salary she quoted?
Yes. The current owners of SR Technics and the owners when it was Team Aer Lingus all tried to make the company competitive but the unions resisted their every move. When the same work can be done in France for 20% less the employees and their unions who resisted change and ignored what the market wanted have to take the blame.I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses ! They have made this country seriously uncompetitive with their policies in many large companys and are directly responsible in many cases for 1000's of job losses over the last decade. Getting a little tired of it to be honest.
It seems that your blaming the union leaders for the outcome of the negotiating process, when they held few cards in the negotiation. The levy was intentionally presented at the last minute by the Govt, knowing well what the unions would have no choice but to walk.If the unions accepted the cuts in pay are needed to be made, instead of a point blank "no" there would not have been an "unfair cut" across the board. If the union were doing their job they should have been negotiating a fair cut. All my posts refer to the union leaders not the workers.
Rubbish; the unions knew full well that pay cuts in some form or another were at the centre of the talks. They didn’t have the moral courage to stand up and be counted so instead they crawled away like craven dogs and let the government take the flak even though they knew well that cuts were necessary and unavoidable.It seems that your blaming the union leaders for the outcome of the negotiating process, when they held few cards in the negotiation. The levy was intentionally presented at the last minute by the Govt, knowing well what the unions would have no choice but to walk.
Yes, but not for their members.The unions accepted the need for cuts long before the talks, and long after.
It seems that your blaming the union leaders for the outcome of the negotiating process.
What is your basis for claiming that the unions didn't accept the need for a pay cut of some form?if the unions accepted we need a pay cut,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?