I'm confused by this. Either they were contractors or they were employees...which is it? (I think they were contractors, in which case they are self-employed).
Wrong again - there were many people in the public sector on fixed term contracts, typically 2-3 contracts relating to specific roles. As these contracts expired, they ended up on the dole. They were not contractors, and they were employed directly by public bodies. And now they form part of the 400k on the dole. As I said at the outset, the private sector does not have a monopoly of the dole queue.
You're not confused. You're wrong. They were employees on fixed term contracts, or in some cases fixed purpose contracts. They were direct employees of the public bodies concerned, paying PAYE and PRSI etc. As their contracts expired, they weren't renewed.
In fact, much of the limited recruitment happening in the public sector today is on this basis of fixed term contracts;
You're clutching at straws now. It's not me you're disagreeing with, it is the rest of the world. The concept of fixed term employees is well established. See http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...full_time_employment/types_of_employment.htmlIt looks like we disagree on the term "employee" then. To me, I would take it to mean permanent staff and would exclude those on contract (daily rate, fixed term or whatever). For you it seems that both are employees. Is that correct?
They WERE employees of the State. A quick look at their P60 will confirm this. They are no longer employees of the State.If so, I'm sure those on fixed term contracts who may not have had their contracts renewed would be very eager for you to show them how they are in fact employees of the state.
I can highlight that there is no reference to the term 'employee' is any of the posts I checked on that site - whether permanent or fixed-term. It's a red herring.The posts you have provided are fixed term contracts which in my book are just that...contracts. In fact, I cannot find any reference to the term "employee" in those links. Perhaps you could highlight for me?
You're clutching at straws now. It's not me you're disagreeing with, it is the rest of the world. The concept of fixed term employees is well established. See http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...full_time_employment/types_of_employment.html
They WERE employees of the State. A quick look at their P60 will confirm this. They are no longer employees of the State.
I can highlight that there is no reference to the term 'employee' is any of the posts I checked on that site - whether permanent or fixed-term. It's a red herring.
"Would those be temporary/contract staff or permanent staff? "
I'd imagine that the vast majority of former public sector workers now on the dole would have been fixed term contract employees. Does it make any difference?
Do you distinguish between private sector staff who where temporary or on contract?
It does not make sense to me to get rid of jobs in public sector and put people on the dole. Yes I agree that people need to reform how they do things, that will mean better and ore services but not sure how much we actually save in getting rid of people with the loss of tax, payment of dole for those who qualify or pensions.
Using that logic, why not give every unemployed person a job in the public sector. Then we wouldn't have to pay them the dole and they would be paying tax.
The lunacy of socialism summed up in one sentence. It works a treat in Cuba and North Korea, doesn't it?
Reducing the number of public employees through redundancy and paying them the dole will reduce the cost to the state, that is the simple math. There is no loss in income tax as the money public employees pay in income tax, comes out of the tax pool in the first place.
So, if you lay off person A earning gross €35,000 per year, and he then receives €10,000 per year on the dole then that is a saving of €25,000 to the public finances.
The lunacy of socialism summed up in one sentence. It works a treat in Cuba and North Korea, doesn't it?
..Also pre-1995 public servants are not entitled to the dole so what do they live on?
I wonder will my question in post #47 be answered?
I actually did, just to see with my own eyes how much damage was done. It was scary, but not as scary as the tales of the people. I remember one kid joining my class who, when asked what his biggest fear was when coming to West Germany, said that it was being sent back!You forgot about Germany...in which direction did people travel when the Berlin wall came down?
Not looking good there buddy, but I don't think it's the first time...
Thanks for pointing that out, the "gross" should say "net"; as stated before public service employee's taxes are paid for out of money taken from the tax pool itself.Maybe I am stupid but if a person earning 35000 is laid off and paid 10,000 it is not a saving of 25000 because the person did not get the 35000 net they might have got 28000 of it so the saving is only 18000, the person on the dole now has 18000 less to spend so the vat and other expenditure the person has is down, they might get rent supplment, mortgage interest, medical card, back to school etc all of which they would not get if they were working and all of which costs the state. So it is not as simple as you make out.
Have you started answering the voices in your head?
Cuba, North Korea and Eastern Bloc countries have or had little or nothing to do with socialism. We could learn a thing or two from the Cuban health system, which focuses on prevention rather than cure, but that's for another day.The lunacy of socialism summed up in one sentence. It works a treat in Cuba and North Korea, doesn't it?
How do you get 'unwilling' from a 28 hour delay? Strangely enough, the poster has a life outside of AAM and doesn't always have the time or the inclination to respond to nitpicking argumentative posts designed to drag a thread off topic and divert attention from your previous erroneous assumptions.I might be better off!
It's funny as I answered the question posed to me by the poster, but the poster seems unwilling to answer the same question himself!
How do you get 'unwilling' from a 28 hour delay?
Strangely enough, the poster has a life outside of AAM and doesn't always have the time or the inclination to respond to nitpicking argumentative posts designed to drag a thread off topic and divert attention from your previous erroneous assumptions.
Your post demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding as to what equality is about if you expect that it requires equal employment conditions for all employees.
I've no idea why you seem to distinguish between permanent and contract staff in the public sector, but not in the private sector, other than for the sake of an argument.
They have as much to do with socialism as the US, Ireland and the UK have to do with capitalism.Cuba, North Korea and Eastern Bloc countries have or had little or nothing to do with socialism.
Perhaps I missed the memo about some SLA for responding to posts? In the absence of such an agreement, I would respectfully suggest that in the light of and posting guideline 9, you would refrain from nagging, bumping posts.Below are the times of posts made by you and I since I entered the debate
5th Dec
2 08 pm
2 11 pm
2 20 pm
2 22 pm
2 35 pm
2 53 pm
3 26 pm
3 44 pm
3 49 pm
4 00 pm
4 46 pm
5 01 pm
5 06 pm
5 12 pm
6 14 pm
Then nothing at all until 10.36pm last night.
As you can see we were busy and the posts were pretty much back and forth at a good rate. Then after I asked you to answer the question you asked me nothing at all until late last night. As you were pretty active yesterday I concluded that you were avoiding the question, which you still are (I'll come to that).
Where you said "I'm surprised that given your many posts regarding fairness and equality that I have not seen any posts where you have called for equality here."I'm at a loss here - can you provide a link to where I have said or conveyed this?
Indeed many, many threads on AAM do get dragged off topic so I find this a bit deflective on your part particularly when you still haven't answered the question you yourself asked me.
If you read my post 47 again in relation I do make it clear that I don't distinguish between permanent and contract staff in the private sector.
Just to confirm, I don't think that those in permanent or contract positions in the public sector should be distinguished either. But it seems they are when it comes to those employees from the public sector who are on the dole queue.
So it's back to you now if you don't mind answering the question you yourself asked (which I have answered). I've re-posted my question below.
"It seems (as we agree) one section (contract staff) of the public workforce has been adversely affected whilst the other (permanent staff) has not. I'm surprised that given your many posts regarding fairness and equality that I have not seen any posts where you have called for equality here. The question is does it make any difference to you?"
They have as much to do with socialism as the US, Ireland and the UK have to do with capitalism.
Both socialists and capitalists have been cheated - by politicians. Neither of us have gotten our perfect system. But I would still prefer to live in a failed capitalist society than a failed socialist one.
The reason why I haven't answered the question is because it is a nonsensical question. In what context are you talking about 'making a difference to me'? In any scenario of reduction in workforce in public or private sector, those on temporary or fixed term contracts will generally be first to go. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about this. There is no equality issue here.
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?