Is it time for wage increases?

[jjm]

riddles I would agree .The problem is posters on hear do not realize it is both a public and private sector problem.It is spiraling out of control because people think they are under paid when in fact they are already over paid for the job they do in Ireland.

 

[Firefly]

riddles I would agree .The problem is posters on hear do not realize it is both a public and private sector problem.It is spiraling out of control because people think they are worth more than they really are in Ireland.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[TheBigShort]

Wages are increasing in a lot of sectors and I will certainly be increasing my own rates soon.

Tut! Tut! But obviously you are worth it. Others are not.

I would prefer to eradicate homelessness.

Wouldnt we all.

Not true; if the economy just gets bigger, i.e. more people working in it,

Yes, that is a benefit. But no pay increases?

The additional people working in it.

Who will spend, creating demand. Fiscal stimulus can contribute hugely here.

Do you really think the LUAS drivers, the best paid tram drivers in Europe before the strike.

I think agreements reneged on, on the pretence that there is no scope for negotiating pay rises, when clearly there was, is exploitation.
Whether they are the best paid or not is mute. Perhaps they live in one of the most expensive cities, relative to income? Perhaps they provide the best tram service in Europe? I mean, whatever the market dictates, isnt that right?

What would you prefer; wage increases in the Public Sector or give the homeless a home?

Ive already answered that.

Transdev obviously have the funds to pay for increases in wages and as you have said are "ploughing ahead with lucrative expansion plans."

Thats not what they said before the strike. They delayed , and threw obstacles and hid behind political circumstances.

Benchmarking 2.0

Benchmarking 2.0 in 2008 delivered 0%. Dont let an inconvenient truth stop you however. Again, you divert the topic onto public sector pay. Your own sought after wage increase does not factor into the cost of living in this country does it not? If you get a pay rise, will others in your sector not seek the same? Or are you looking at rises awarded to colleagues and playing a bit of catch up?

You have said that we shouldn't borrow to just raise wages, so how should these wage demands be met?

Fiscal stimulus. I've already told you this, why do you keep repeating it? If you were in charge you would eradicate homelessness. I have told you the amount of trades and workers that could benefit, not a public sector worker in sight. This topic is not about current pay disputes of any particular sector. It is about formulating economic policy that will bring people back to work, increase state revenues, reduce the cost of welfare benefits, increase incomes and provide economic stability in the years ahead.
What we currently have, is the same bankrupt monetary policy that is based on credit expansion upon wage restraint. It cannot continue, it is a busted flush. You have said so yourself referring to the 'suckers' who borrow too much.

It becomes my business if I have to pay for their wage increases through higher taxes or more borrowings,

And your pay rise becomes my business if my cost of living increases. Or are you excluded from the economy as a whole, do you not count in the overall scheme of things?

I agree, but my point was that an organisation that gives everyone the same increase in pay would never attract him

Bully for him.

I don't understand what you mean. I was referring to the nonesense that is equality of outcome.

I was referring to your incessant compulsion to talk about public sector pay only, and ignore private sector pay increases.

There are workers out there who have never advanced themselves and are crap at their job, always sick etc

So for that, the rest of the workforce should freeze, cut pay?
If you are sick, you are sick. Either you lose your job and rely on disability allowance or you dont progress far in your job and remain on low pay. What proportion of the population are we talking about here? What levels of pay or disability allowances are we talking about, that could prevent the progress of the rest of the workforce?

If they don't like their pay levels, find another job.

Yes, and then other workers can fill their vacancies for less income. Because they wil only be too glad to work for less, a bit like what is actually happening - new recruits to teaching and the Gardai are just so grateful to have a job that pays less than their colleagues.

Giving them higher pay means that someone else is subsidising them

Only if you believe that what they do for a living is being overvalued. Take the (near) Garda strike for example. Had the Gardai gone on strike and someone shunted into the back of your car that morning, you would obviously file an insurance claim. But without a Garda report, the insurance claim may not get through if the other party in the accident denied what occured. Think of all the court cases thrown out because Garda witness didnt turn to court. Think of large entertainment and sport events that would have to be cancelled because of no garda presence. Think of security cash vans that couldn't deliver to atms because without garda emergency response are not insured.
Think of serious crimes not being investigated properly, the list goes on.
But the point is, the cost to the economy and society at large is far greater, in the absence of law enforcement, than the cost of a days wage to gardai.

But rather than borrowing more money to fix it I would reduce current spending instead. I would reverse the measures introduced in the budget for example and put the money into eradicating homelessness.

If you want to that that is fine. You are simply re-directing spending, not reducing it. Instead of money pumped into the economy via public sector wages, you would pump money into the private sector through a house building program, private sector wages. Its fiscal stimulus either way, what ive been arguing for.

My point is that (1) you have said that we shouldn't borrow just to give someone a pay rise and (2) you prefer to eradicate homelessness rather than increasing pay in the public sector. So why argue further for pay increases....why not instead put your efforts into promoting the eradication of homelessness, as you have said yourself, you would rather fix this first?

To eradicate homelessness, as you have pointed out, will require people to be paid. Its still government spending. It creates demand and in turn this will lead to wage increases across the economy. Its not rocket science.
Instead what we have is QE, bank balance sheets being stuffed with money printing. So banks will lend again, so we can buy ipads and SUV's or go on the rip, or speculate on property prices etc

Interesting you are referencing the policies of a clear winner of capitalism.

The guy is twerp, out of his depth, and if that is your idea of a 'winner', thats your view.
But at least he has the foresight to see fiscal stimulus, infrastructure spending and borrowing is preferable to what we have now.

In any case, as per above, Trump seeks to finance this with new bonds.

Yes, government borrowing. Money is cheap.
I find it interesting that you dont seem to take issue with private banks borrowing at 0% so they can lend us the money to be 'suckers', but you take issue with government borrowing even if it may eradicate homelessness.

Also, he is looking to reduce corporate tax. Interesting that, as most of the Left argue for higher corporation taxes

Like I said, he is a twerp. Nowhere have I argued for reduced corporate tax.

 

[Firefly]

Wow.. this is becoming an epic effort for both of us I imagine!

Tut! Tut! But obviously you are worth it. Others are not.

Never said I was worth it. As an IT contractor I am 100% at the mercy of the market. An influx of workers with my skills, a sudden change in technology, key employers going wallup, or me making a serious error would see my rates tumble, if not result in me being unemployed. Based on the skills & experience I have and the state of the market, I will be seeking a rise next year, because I believe the market will bear it. I could be completely wrong but I won't make a song & dance about it and you won't see me picketing my current employer!

Benchmarking 2.0 in 2008 delivered 0%. Dont let an inconvenient truth stop you however.

I had lost count of the number of Benchmarking exercises we've been through so thanks for clarifying! It must be Benchmarking 3.0 now is it?

Again, you divert the topic onto public sector pay.

It's not my intention. You are seeking wage increases and I am asking how this can be achieved for the largest employer in the state. I am happy to ask you how you think wages can be increased for everyone in the private sector too!

Your own sought after wage increase does not factor into the cost of living in this country does it not?

I don't believe so. It is based on what I can earn in an open market. As noted above, I could easily find my rates at zero and the cost of living would not play a part.

If you get a pay rise, will others in your sector not seek the same?

How would they know? I don't discuss my rates / earnings with anyone except my employer

Or are you looking at rises awarded to colleagues and playing a bit of catch up?

I'm not aware of what (edit: most of) my colleagues are earning and am doing nicely thanks. I do believe I can earn more next year though, but I could be wrong.

Thats not what they said before the strike. They delayed , and threw obstacles and hid behind political circumstances.

I agree they played hard-ball and I if I was dealing with a union I would too!

Fiscal stimulus. I've already told you this, why do you keep repeating it? If you were in charge you would eradicate homelessness. I have told you the amount of trades and workers that could benefit, not a public sector worker in sight. This topic is not about current pay disputes of any particular sector. It is about formulating economic policy that will bring people back to work, increase state revenues, reduce the cost of welfare benefits, increase incomes and provide economic stability in the years ahead.

It's debatable if eradicating homelessness would "increase state revenues, reduce the cost of welfare benefits", but I think it should still be done and we both agree on that.

And your pay rise becomes my business if my cost of living increases. Or are you excluded from the economy as a whole, do you not count in the overall scheme of things?

That's a fair point, except in my case a large proportion of the work I do is for organisations based outside the country.

I was referring to your incessant compulsion to talk about public sector pay only, and ignore private sector pay increases.

The reason I am asking about how public sector pay can be increased is because it's the largest cohort of workers in the country. It's like someone contemplating doing their first triathlon and not being able to swim...doesn't matter how fast they are on the bike does it?

In any case I am happy to discuss how you think wages across the public sector can be increased also.

So for that, the rest of the workforce should freeze, cut pay?
If you are sick, you are sick. Either you lose your job and rely on disability allowance or you dont progress far in your job and remain on low pay. What proportion of the population are we talking about here? What levels of pay or disability allowances are we talking about, that could prevent the progress of the rest of the workforce?

My bad, when I said sick I meant "sick". You know, the people who take sickies.

Yes, and then other workers can fill their vacancies for less income. Because they wil only be too glad to work for less, a bit like what is actually happening - new recruits to teaching and the Gardai are just so grateful to have a job that pays less than their colleagues.

I find it highly amusing that the teachers and Gardai are protesting against the government, when it was their unions shafted them by agreeing to the terms!

Only if you believe that what they do for a living is being overvalued. Take the (near) Garda strike for example. Had the Gardai gone on strike and someone shunted into the back of your car that morning, you would obviously file an insurance claim. But without a Garda report, the insurance claim may not get through if the other party in the accident denied what occured. Think of all the court cases thrown out because Garda witness didnt turn to court. Think of large entertainment and sport events that would have to be cancelled because of no garda presence. Think of security cash vans that couldn't deliver to atms because without garda emergency response are not insured.
Think of serious crimes not being investigated properly, the list goes on.
But the point is, the cost to the economy and society at large is far greater, in the absence of law enforcement, than the cost of a days wage to gardai.

I agree with all that and it's why the government gave them the extra money.

If you want to that that is fine. You are simply re-directing spending, not reducing it. Instead of money pumped into the economy via public sector wages, you would pump money into the private sector through a house building program, private sector wages. Its fiscal stimulus either way, what ive been arguing for.

Exactly.

To eradicate homelessness, as you have pointed out, will require people to be paid. Its still government spending. It creates demand and in turn this will lead to wage increases across the economy. Its not rocket science.

Not necessarily, if we re-direct spending the money pumped into the economy stays the same, just that a different group (the homeless) benefit.

Instead what we have is QE, bank balance sheets being stuffed with money printing. So banks will lend again, so we can buy ipads and SUV's or go on the rip, or speculate on property prices etc

You've made this point upteen times and I agree with it.

The guy is twerp, out of his depth, and if that is your idea of a 'winner', thats your view.

I was been sarcastic. The guy's a complete muppet and that's an insult to muppets everywhere.

But at least he has the foresight to see fiscal stimulus, infrastructure spending and borrowing is preferable to what we have now.

If he can get the finance and if it makes sense to do so.

Yes, government borrowing. Money is cheap.

As already pointed out - when the government needs to re-finance this debt the interest rates are likely to he higher.

I find it interesting that you dont seem to take issue with private banks borrowing at 0% so they can lend us the money to be 'suckers', but you take issue with government borrowing even if it may eradicate homelessness.

I have a massive problem with banks lending at 0%. It's madness and people are buying all sorts of crap they don't need.

Like I said, he is a twerp. Nowhere have I argued for reduced corporate tax.

But he is arguing for a reduction in corporate tax to help fund his stimulus package. Cutting corporate tax seems to go against the grain for most socialists I have come into contact with. Do you think he should cut corporation tax?

 

[TheBigShort]

Never said I was worth it. As an IT contractor I am 100% at the mercy of the market.

Shouldn't you look for a pay cut so? You know, keep yourself competitive and all?

It's not my intention.

You are making a good stab at it though!

I don't believe so. It is based on what I can earn in an open market.

Where is this open market? Can I see the prices? Can you?

How would they know? I don't discuss my rates / earnings with anyone except my employer

Oh, its actually a closed market, based on confidentiality agreements and secrecy. Who does that suit I wonder? Especially when it comes to unfairness.
That is one of the benefits of a trade union, they can take exploitative employers to task. Better than having individual workers making a nuisance by picketing.

I'm not aware of what my colleagues are earning and am doing nicely thanks. I do believe I can earn more next year though, but I could be wrong.

How do you know? You must access to information that tells you can earn more. But simultaneously, you keep your earnings secret.

It's debatable if eradicating homelessness would "increase state revenues, reduce the cost of welfare benefits", but I think it should still be done and we both agree on that.

Everything is debatable. But if you are going to build homes, this costs money, in planning, design, construction, public works, etc. Sounds like increased employment, sounds like reduced dole queues, sounds like increased revenues, VAT etc

The reason I am asking about how public sector pay can be increased is because it's the largest cohort of workers in the country.

Even though you dont intend to keep reverting back to discussing public sector pay?

My bad, when I said sick I meant "sick". You know, the people who take sickies.

Yeh, I know a colleague currently recovering from breast cancer operation, with severve difficulties. She is now on half pay, not much higher than welfare rates. All these sick days add to the total sick leave in the public sector.
A friend of mine, in the private sector on the other hand broke his leg in numerous places, out of work for ten weeks on welfare benefits, no pay. But at least it doesn't count as sick days in the private sector!

I find it highly amusing that the teachers and Gardai are protesting against the government, when it was their unions shafted them by agreeing to the terms!

So now the unions are doing the state a service?

In any case I am happy to discuss how you think wages across the public sector can be increased also.

Honestly! You are not a bot are you?

Not necessarily, if we re-direct spending the money pumped into the economy stays the same, just that a different group (the homeless) benefit.

Who will build these homes? Will they get paid? Will they pay taxes? Is VAT applicable in all of this activity? Will there be profits for construction companies? Will they pay taxes.

You've made this point upteen times and I agree with it.

Great, so you are against QE. You are also in favour of fiscal stimulus.

If he can get the finance and if it makes sense to do so

Can we take it as a given that we all believe our opinions and policy preferences make sense to at least those who proffer them?

As already pointed out - when the government needs to re-finance this debt the interest rates are likely to he higher.

As will the banks who are borrowing from ECB at 0%

I have a massive problem with banks lending at 0%. It's madness and people are buying all sorts of crap they don't need.

Its the ECB that is lending to banks at 0%. The banks are lending to consumers for higher rates and profits. Eventually these profits will trickle down to us all, ha!ha!hah!
This is economic policy as adopted by European governments.

But he is arguing for a reduction in corporate tax to help fund his stimulus package

So you said. I said he is a twerp. I said I dont believe that is a good idea.

 

[Firefly]

Shouldn't you look for a pay cut so? You know, keep yourself competitive and all?

No, I believe I am competitive at my current rate and will still be competitive at the higher rate.

You are making a good stab at it though!
Even though you dont intend to keep reverting back to discussing public sector pay?

If you can tell me how increasing wages in the public sector can be achieved, (you have already stated we shouldn't borrow to just give pay rises), I will happily move on.

Where is this open market? Can I see the prices? Can you?

It's as open a market as it can be I believe. I get contacted by various agencies and discuss rates different employers are offering. I make my judgements on this.

Oh, its actually a closed market, based on confidentiality agreements and secrecy.

No, I just don't share my earnings with anyone and don't expect anyone else to share theirs with me. I find most people are the same actually. Does that make it a closed market?

Who does that suit I wonder? Especially when it comes to unfairness.

If I am not happy with my job I look for something else.

That is one of the benefits of a trade union, they can take exploitative employers to task. Better than having individual workers making a nuisance by picketing.

I'm not against unions per se, and there are no doubt cases where it's easier for an employer to agree a wage rate for a large number of staff rather than treating each case seperately. I think it works against staff who deliver more though.

How do you know? You must access to information that tells you can earn more. But simultaneously, you keep your earnings secret.

As above - discussions with agencies and also intuition & gut feeling. As I mentioned, I could just as easily be earing nothing next year though.

Everything is debatable. But if you are going to build homes, this costs money, in planning, design, construction, public works, etc. Sounds like increased employment, sounds like reduced dole queues, sounds like increased revenues, VAT etc

In agree, but on the other side of the balance is increased fixed liabilities in the form of higher debts.

Yeh, I know a colleague currently recovering from breast cancer operation, with severve difficulties. She is now on half pay, not much higher than welfare rates. All these sick days add to the total sick leave in the public sector.
A friend of mine, in the private sector on the other hand broke his leg in numerous places, out of work for ten weeks on welfare benefits, no pay. But at least it doesn't count as sick days in the private sector!

These are not the people I am talking about and you know it. I am referring people pulling sickies.

So now the unions are doing the state a service?

Where did I say that? My point is that the workers should be marching to their unions demanding why they agreed to the terms!

Honestly! You are not a bot are you?

Typo - I meant private sector.

Who will build these homes? Will they get paid? Will they pay taxes? Is VAT applicable in all of this activity? Will there be profits for construction companies? Will they pay taxes.

Whoever builds them the cheapest. If the State can do it for cheaper then it should. But I take your point, whoever builds the houses will also benefit.

Great, so you are against QE. You are also in favour of fiscal stimulus.

I am against QE. I am in favour of fiscal stimulus if it makes sense. IE if we are running a surplus and paying down our debts.

Can we take it as a given that we all believe our opinions and policy preferences make sense to at least those who proffer them?

I honestly don't understand your point, if you can re-phrase I will offer an opinion.

As will the banks who are borrowing from ECB at 0%

Agreed

Its the ECB that is lending to banks at 0%. The banks are lending to consumers for higher rates and profits. Eventually these profits will trickle down to us all, ha!ha!hah!

Yip, lending at 0% by the ECB to banks enticing people to borrow for crap they don't need is a recipe for disaster. Car companies (with their own banks) are also lending at 0% too by the way.

So you said. I said he is a twerp. I said I dont believe that is a good idea.

Well, he has put forward an idea you think is good. If you do not think it is a good idea for him to reduce corporation tax, do you think he should just borrow for it all?

 

[Purple]

Oh, its actually a closed market, based on confidentiality agreements and secrecy. Who does that suit I wonder? Especially when it comes to unfairness.

No, it's an open market; everyone negotiates their own pay levels with perspective employers. If one employer is paying less than everyone else they don't get the right employees. If everyone was on the same pay levels or engaged in collective bargaining it would not be an open market.

That is one of the benefits of a trade union, they can take exploitative employers to task. Better than having individual workers making a nuisance by picketing.

That's a terribly negative view of the world. Who takes the exploitative unions to task as they take more and more from the poor and vulnerable and give it to middle income employees in the protected sector? Shame on them.

A friend of mine, in the private sector on the other hand broke his leg in numerous places, out of work for ten weeks on welfare benefits, no pay. But at least it doesn't count as sick days in the private sector!

He should have got serious illness insurance. It amazes me that people are so unable to make provision for themselves.

 

[Purple]

No, I believe I am competitive at my current rate and will still be competitive at the higher rate.

And if you are not you won't get the work and so will have to reduce your rates; an open market.

 

[Firefly]

And if you are not you won't get the work and so will have to reduce your rates; an open market.

Absolutely. It will be a short conversation. I actually intend to stay where I am whatever the outcome. It's a good, long running contract with very decent work.

 

[Firefly]

He should have got serious illness insurance. It amazes me that people are so unable to make provision for themselves.

It's bananas. I was only taking to someone earlier today (a fellow, evil IT contractor), who has a wife and 2 kids but doesn't have life assurance.

 

[jjm]

firefly You are almost 100% sure of getting your pay rise. The people who directly Hire you may want a pay rise and by giving you a pay rise will be able to have pay rise also . They may not be able to afford to give a pay rise lower down to everyone . This is the main reason the top 20% pay more tax in this country .So you see this is how it works in both the public and private sectors. only some get it in the private sector those closest to the top do better than people further down the line.I

 

[TheBigShort]

Where did I say that? My point is that the workers should be marching to their unions demanding why they agreed to the terms!

They do, the last ADC I was at got pretty heated. The union leadership prevailed however.

No, I believe I am competitive at my current rate and will still be competitive at the higher rate

Good, and I do hope you get that pay rise. It will be good for our economy if this manifests into pay rises for the population at large.

If you can tell me how increasing wages in the public sector can be achieved, (you have already stated we shouldn't borrow to just give pay rises), I will happily move on.

Through increased productivity. If the state borrows, say for...I dunno...eh, say a house building program. This will create employment in the construction sector. It will also create economic activity in legal and other professional activities including planning divisions of county councils, Office of public works etc. This will create employment, relieve the homeless crisis. It may also act as a buffer to increasing property prices, facilitating first-time buyers to enter the market, inducing more economic activity in the areas I have already mentioned. Not only that, other entrepreneurs may try take advantage of this new confidence by investing in ancillary enterprises like a restaurant, or supermarket. This will create more demand. And in doing so, as the economy grows, this activity will require public services, like a park, or a hospital or a garda station. And no different to yourself, most public servants are good at their jobs. And when the economy is growing, they look to see their own standard of living is maintained and or improved.
Thats how wage increases in the public service can be achieved.

But to ask you a question, you dont agree with increased government borrowing and you dont agree with QE.
Would this not simply bring about a economic meltdown? What would you do to stimulate economic activity?

 

[TheBigShort]

[QUOTE="Purple, post: 1493900, member:

He should have got serious illness insurance. It amazes me that people are so unable to make provision for themselves.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, as a qualified mechanic, he is relatively low paid €14ph. With rent and childcare etc there is not much left over. He is a good lad, 27, would love to buy his own home but it is out of reach.

 

[Firefly]

firefly You are almost 100% sure of getting your pay rise. The people who directly Hire you may want a pay rise and by giving you a pay rise will be able to have pay rise also . They may not be able to afford to give a pay rise lower down of to everyone . This is the main reason the top 20% pay more tax in this country .So you see this is how it works in both the public and private sectors.

Sorry, I don't follow. If someone lower down or higher up than me gets a pay rise it should be reflective of the same criteria as it is for me - what the market can bear. A promising junior grade worker who has constantly delivered for the client and is increasing his/her marketable skills should get more than a clock-watcher who does the minimum and doesn't improve his skillset. In addition, it also comes down to the ability of the organisation to pay. If the organisation is already borrowing to keep the lights on then it is going to have a hard time increasing pay rates for anyone, let alone its top performers.

 

[TheBigShort]

Absolutely. It will be a short conversation. I actually intend to stay where I am whatever the outcome. It's a good, long running contract with very decent work.

If it is a contract then you should be able to sue if breached. If your contract expires and is not renewed it is either no work available or you are not as competitive as you think you are.

 

[TheBigShort]

And if you are not you won't get the work and so will have to reduce your rates; an open market.

But he is competitive, he said so. So much so that he is seeking a pay rise.

 

[jjm]

firefly you know better than that you sound like some people who got a big fat pay rise.your reply is straight out of the public service union BOOK

 

[Firefly]

They do, the last ADC I was at got pretty heated. The union leadership prevailed however.

Good for them. Hadn't noticed it on the news though.

Good, and I do hope you get that pay rise. It will be good for our economy if this manifests into pay rises for the population at large.

Thanks. I'm a saver rather than a spender though, so it might take some time.

Through increased productivity. If the state borrows, say for...I dunno...eh, say a house building program. This will create employment in the construction sector. It will also create economic activity in legal and other professional activities including planning divisions of county councils, Office of public works etc. This will create employment, relieve the homeless crisis. It may also act as a buffer to increasing property prices, facilitating first-time buyers to enter the market, inducing more economic activity in the areas I have already mentioned. Not only that, other entrepreneurs may try take advantage of this new confidence by investing in ancillary enterprises like a restaurant, or supermarket. This will create more demand. And in doing so, as the economy grows, this activity will require public services, like a park, or a hospital or a garda station. And no different to yourself, most public servants are good at their jobs. And when the economy is growing, they look to see their own standard of living is maintained and or improved.
Thats how wage increases in the public service can be achieved.

"planning divisions of county councils, Office of public works"
"public services, like a park, or a hospital or a garda station."

Why would they need higher wages? Certainly I could see a demand for more workers, but why more pay? (which is what this thread is about).

But to ask you a question, you dont agree with increased government borrowing and you dont agree with QE.
Would this not simply bring about a economic meltdown? What would you do to stimulate economic activity?

I don't think so to be honest. We have the fastest growing economy in Europe (despsite all the dire warnings over austerity measures). Stable government finances are a key bedrock to the welfare of the economy of the state. I would prefer to run a small budget surplus and keep chipping away at the national debt. Ever talk so someone just after they have cleared their mortgage?

I would also make it as easy as possible for indigenous industry to grow.

 

[Firefly]

If it is a contract then you should be able to sue if breached.

It will be when the contract is up for renewal we'll having "the chat". And they're a great company and always pay on time.

If your contract expires and is not renewed it is either no work available or you are not as competitive as you think you are.

Yip, I agree 100%. Market based economics at its finest.

 

[Firefly]

firefly you know better than that you sound like some people who got a big fat pay rise.your reply is straight out of the public service union BOOK

I can't see where you are getting that from to be honest. I will be seeking a pay rise based on what I think the market will bear. I may well be incorrect, but unlike public service unions, I won't be picketing outside the door.