S
I'd agree, but you seemed happy enough to discuss it and indeed label it as fiction on this thread right up until it was pointed out that they had made reasonable corrections in their figures to ensure a more accurate like-for-like comparisson.
and if the cancer that is the present trade union movement get their way I know that as a nation we will be facing into decades of gloom and depression.
I agree... that's why I didn't suggest it.It is simplistic to suggest that unions are our sole problem either in the past or in the future.
The database that all the ESRI analyses were based on has no information about job content. It has no information about the work that people do, probably because this information doesn't lend itself to being structured in a database form. None of the ESRI reports looked at job content.Thats not true.
They used a propensity score matching approach that allowed them to to look at and give greater emphasis to job characteristics rather than human characteristics.
Well said, I agree 100%The argument that 'the banks caused this problem so they should pay for it not the poor ordinary workers' doesn't make sense.
We all bought into the illusion - well most of us did.
I didn't hear unions shout don't pay our workers higher rates because the economic fundamentals are not sound. The rates of pay we all enjoyed were only affordable because we had a property bubble. The bubble has now well and truly burst.
Aswell as major reform of how we do our jobs in the public service we need to accept substantial adjustments in pay to reflect the economic realities that we now face as a nation.
I will not be joining the day of protest - I hope to be in my classroom doing my job.
This is completely inappropriate, with or without smileys. You need to remove it.What's the standard sentence for assaulting a union official I wonder? It might be worth it.
Although knowing their influence the sentence is probably death.
You are joking, right? You believe that an in-house IBEC survey is 'more accurate' than a CSO report! So the CSO which has the best statisticians in the country, and the statutory weight to oblige employers to report is less accurate than some flimsy IBEC yoke? Get off the stage, will ya and get real.Second, there are more reports that the CSO. The IBEC quarterly business survey has far more accurate statistics direct from employers about cuts.
Many of whom came from the public sector - the private sector don't have a monopoly on job losses.Well that and an addition 200,000 on the live register.
Speaking of blatant partisanship, let's look at the full picture. Taxes are not just paid by private sector workers. Taxes are paid by everybody with substantial income. The beauty of the tax system is its general fairness. Those who earn, pay. Those who don't, don't. If you're pay has been cut, you pay less. If your pay is low, you pay nothing. Private sector workers don't have a monopoloy on tax.Interesting to see the union brethern take such a blatant partisan approach - openly calling on private sector workers to pay extra taxes to protect pay levels in the PS. They obviously believe that they have the muscle to force the government to impose even more taxes, to avoid cutting their PS members pay.
Very many tens of thousands of private sector employees were made compulsory redundant this year - whilst not one permanent PS employee has suffered the same faith.
I guess agency staff would be considered as private sector.To be honest I would have thought it would be more, perhaps they never fully included contractors in the first place?
Not quite. Some judges don't pay.And for the record, the public sector is the one sector where EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE has already taken their share of the pain through the pension levy.
And for the record, the public sector is the one sector where EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE has already taken their share of the pain through the pension levy.
I'd agree, but you seemed happy enough to discuss it and indeed label it as fiction on this thread right up until it was pointed out that they had made reasonable corrections in their figures to ensure a more accurate like-for-like comparisson.
And for the record, the public sector is the one sector where EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE has already taken their share of the pain through the pension levy.
You think it is funny that 380,000 people have taken a pay cut.
This is not true! ESB employees are a large and important part of the public sector yet do not pay the pension levy. Indeed they got a 3% increase! Hardly sharing the pain!
And Judges who are part of the Public service do not pay this levy.
It is true to say however that nearly all employees of the public service pay the levy.
I'd say the funny part is the notion that a cut of about 4% of net pay for public servants represents the full extent of the contribution they need to make in addressing runaway public spending
It didn't affect gross pay, so it's not a pay cut.DerKaiser is the pension levy a pay cut or not?
DerKaiser is the pension levy a pay cut or not?
Many of whom came from the public sector - the private sector don't have a monopoly on job losses..
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?