What is the squeezed middle?

There's nothing stopping anyone asking for part time work after maternity leave.
The Public Sector proactively accommodates part time working. Part time employees are protected under legislation since 2001.
Parental leave is a legal entitlement in Ireland.
Family and medical leave have nothing in particular to do with part time working as they effect full time employees as much or more.
Comparing family and medical leave in Ireland to what they have in the USA is a really easy way to lose an argument.
If you want access to quality employment then get yourself quality skills which employers want.
 
In my 15 years in public sector I can definitely state they do not proactively accommodate part time work. Of 12 people in my department who have asked for it , one was accommodated.
 
phileasfogg said:
In my 15 years in public sector I can definitely state they do not proactively accommodate part time work. Of 12 people in my department who have asked for it , one was accommodated.
Click to expand...
So they couldn't accommodate it. That doesn't mean they didn't try or that they are not pro-active.
Are you suggesting that people should have an automatic entitlement to work part time?
 
I am implying that turning down 11 out of 12 requests does not fit the definition of proactive.
I am suggesting that thousands of parents who are highly skilled would choose to stay home entirely than to working 9 to 5.30 5 days a week. If suggestions of 30% tax to lure home skilled emigrants are being thrown out there that maybe some ideas to use the skilled workers we already have might be appropriate.
 
I'd choose to stay at home entirely than to working 9 to 5.30 5 days a week if I could (if someone else was paying my way). What's your point?
I'm with you on lowering taxes on highly skilled, and therefore highly paid, people but that's being discussed on another thread and they aren't part of this elusive squeezes middle.
 
phileasfogg said:
In my 15 years in public sector I can definitely state they do not proactively accommodate part time work. Of 12 people in my department who have asked for it , one was accommodated.
Click to expand...
This can't be right, I also work in the public sector and of the 7 people in my department 3 work full time and the other 4 work different patterns of part time e.g. 4 out of 5 days, 9 out of 10 days etc. Never once has anyone who has requested a change to part time been denied it, and it has as Purple suggested always been accommodated and I would even say it has been encouraged as at the end of the day it reduces the overall wage bill for the department. I would be contacting my union if I were you.
 
Maybe the job phileasfogg has does not lend itself to part time working.
It is unreasonable to expect the organisation to damage itself in order to accommodate the domestic/private needs of an employee. If your job and your home life are incompatible then get a different job.
 
Do a quick job search for jobs compatible with family life and see how many jobs you find. It must depend on what area of public service you are in then but it is not universal. My job is perfectly suitable for part time work. I am in fact part time ( technically ) but my colleagues are not and are unable to find part time work elsewhere. I'm not sure what utopia allows one to change to a family friendly job overnight because it's not Ireland.
My point is people ARE choosing to stay at home entirely ( and paying their own way) but they could be working and paying taxes and paying the way for the country. Encouraging people to go to work can hardly be bad for the country.
 
What do you mean compatible with family life?
8.00 to 4.30 is certainly compatible with family life for most people.
It's a job, not a hobby.
 
Remember, if a job can be done remotely at home, theres a v good chance it can be done from india for half the price. You have to be adding value by being present, at least some of the time.

The middle is also being squeezed because they are competing in a global labour pool.

Unless we are going to cut off trade with india etc we have to compete our way out of it, not try to wave the magic wand of legislation when you are a globalised trade dependent country like ireland.
 
That's a key point in all of this.
People in developing countries are now vastly better off than they were 20 years ago. That's a result of a move towards capitalism and away from protectionism and socialism. The price we pay for that is a small diminution in our living standards but the reward for them is massive.
How dare we in the pampered West, with our trade barriers and agricultural subsidies, begrudge the real poor and vulnerable some of the riches we enjoy. What galls me is it's usually self proclaimed socialists who are most in favour of the protectionism which inflicts such suffering on so many. They dress it up in meaningless phrases like "Race to the bottom". Take a look at the people who are really at the bottom. Walk around a shanty town and get the smell of excrement and rot and hopelessness. See what the bottom of the pile of humanity really looks like. Then feel the empty phrases of a myopic self serving urbanity Irish socialism turn to ash in your mouth.
 
Ok, I'm leaving it here. But let's assume there are people living in this utopia who have to travel an hour to work ( blame rental prices, lack of local jobs, high crèche fees in urban centres-whichever you choose), so assume this means taking a 3 year old from bed at 6.20, wash, dress, wiggle room in schedule for a tantrum, refusal to get in car seat etc, out the door at 6.50, drop to crèche work at 8am, back to crèche at 5.30pm, home dinner bed by 6.20 pm. It's not an ideal family life really, not every day. I've done it myself and of course it's doable. But the thing being, take home pay minus childcare costs has to be substantial to take the deal. Many who can , opt out.
 
I agree. I've done it for years. It's really hard and it makes you feel guilty as a parent. That's not your employers fault though It's not even their problem. The reason you have no money is because you are paying over half your marginal income in tax. That means working harder to earn more is just not worth it. The solution isn't for the state to take more of your money so they can give it back to you, or take someone else's money and give it to you. The solution is for the state to take less of your money so that you retain the fruits of your own hard work! The problem isn't lack of state funding for childcare it's a marginal tax rate of over 50%!
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Not really.

The top 20% of earners are being squeezed for taxes. Not really the middle.

Brendan
Click to expand...

That changes the question: I was responding to your assertion that "There is a middle, but it's not squeezed".

Trying to change the question to "not being squeezed by taxes" is just trying to escape the facts (which you yourself provided) that support the argument that there is in fact a squeezed middle. Yes, those on average incomes may have tax rates that are nominally comparable to other countries, but there are two big differences. Firstly, other countries don't have a myriad of other taxes to consider: VRT on cars for example, or insurance levies, or raids on pension funds or whatever. Secondly, and this is the big difference, is what those taxes pay for: they have things like the NHS; their free education is actually free, unlike here. I could go on. Saying that the middle isn't squeezed by taxes is a moot point: if I have low income tax (which I don't by the way: it's comparable to other countries) it really doesn't matter if I have other taxes or have to pay for things that in other countries are provided by those taxes.

And as for seeking to ease the burden on the squeezed middle by going after low income people is just bizarre: I'm reminded of the apocryphal quote by the bank robber when asked why he robbed banks: "because that’s where the money is". You're looking in the wrong place.
 
TheBigShort said:
Well I was more taken with the word 'uptopia'. Regardless if it was communist uptopia or a free market paradise, utopia in any market form sounds more desirable than what we have now.
Click to expand...

Let's assume for argument's sake we had a communist uptopia - how would that be more desirable than what we have now?
 
Firefly said:
Let's assume for argument's sake we had a communist uptopia - how would that be more desirable than what we have now?
Click to expand...

Utopia - an ideal place or state. A visionary system of political or social perfection.

Be it achieved under communism or capitalism or other system, would be a mute point.
 

i doubt its a political phrase , something only earns a political term if it holds value , the squeezed middle are constantly ignored , the very well off always have the ear of goverment and the so called disadvantaged have armies of QUANGO,s , the media is also concerned with the so called disadvantaged as human interest and hard luck stories make better copy than a hum drum middle class couple who leave their house in the suburbs each morning to go to work , , both the quangocrats and media see the squeezed middle as a cow to be milked in order to fund various projects

the hated middle class etc
 
TheBigShort said:
Utopia - an ideal place or state. A visionary system of political or social perfection.

Be it achieved under communism or capitalism or other system, would be a mute point.
Click to expand...

Very clever, I see what you are doing! Rather than it being a pity we don't have a communist utopia (which I (and I suspect others) would think to be utopic for believers in communism), you are now saying it's a pity we don't have utopia achieved by either communism or capitalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register