Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are the Private Sector simply Jealous of the Public Sector?

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭pearcider


    Welease wrote: »
    The point is a general one about the high costs of wages in Ireland with no additional value being provided. So don't get bogged down in the specifics :).. It's pretty much well understood now that we are a high cost economy.

    I am just quoting what was available on the web after a quick search.. I don't claim to be an expert.. But since you are categorically stating I am wrong, and that you reckon UK medics get up to 30% more, can you provide some evidence (remebering not all medics live in London).

    The sites I got info from..
    http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=132
    NHS Paramedic Pay is Band 5 - Band 5 pay ranges from 20.7K to 26.8K (at today rate of exchange that is 23.5K - 30.4K)

    For Ireland the salary rates quoted were..
    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20673684/Working-as-a-National-Ambulance-Service-Paramedic
    After qualification 29.7K Euro - 37.1K Euro. including long service increments (numebrs quoted does not include shift, weekend or public holiday pay which can increase salary by 6-8K
    Leading Paramedic - 30.4K - 42.5K and extra 9.7K is paid to those who complete Advanced Paramedia training program..

    There's not much in it alright. But what about the pension levy for the Irish medics, the different tax rates and allowances, the different cost of living. Have lived in London I can tell you...your pound goes a LOT further than your euro does in Dublin - especially when it comes to food/drink, discretionary spend and rent/mortgage repayments. As our bubble economy deflates, these discrepancies will change. Point being, the currency exchange factor you use 0.88 GBP/EUR is nowhere near correct. The analysis is considerably more complicated but you made it sound as if they get paid 40% more in your original quote...ya see where I'm coming from? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #153
    Welease
    Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    pearcider wrote: »
    There's not much in it alright. But what about the pension levy for the Irish medics, the different tax rates and allowances, the different cost of living. Have lived in London I can tell you...your pound goes a LOT further than your euro does in Dublin - especially when it comes to food/drink, discretionary spend and rent/mortgage repayments. As our bubble economy deflates, these discrepancies will change. Point being, the currency exchange factor you use 0.88 GBP/EUR is nowhere near correct. The analysis is considerably more complicated but you made it sound as if they get paid 40% more in your original quote...ya see where I'm coming from? :rolleyes:

    So you don't have any figures to back up your 30% more claim? ;)
    I just quoted figures that are available from reputable sites... nothing more.. you made the assumptions :)

    BUT :)

    The point is.. (and it is a very important point that people need to start to understand)... in order to run a competitive country and attract investment you have to offer value. When you try and cut wages to regain competitiveness we end up with strikes, go slows, works to rules etc. which drives potential investment even further away.

    If people want to continue to be paid X amount more than our European counterparts, then they need to provide X amount more value than our European counterparts    ..

    As has been previously noted, why would a car maker pay a US line workers 10 times the rate of a Chinese worker who produces exactly the same amount of cars per day... That doesnt make economic sense. If you want to be paid 10 times the amount, and you don't want to be involved in a race to the bottom, then you need to deliver 10 times the value.

    So back to the original point, has the poster to who I was responding to .. actually earned that wage (in a competitve sense) or merely been paid that wage.. there is a huge difference and one that is key to our current economic issues.

    Rgds,
    Welease.


  • Options
    #154
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭pearcider


    Welease wrote: »
    So you don't have any figures to back up your 30% more claim? ;)
    I just quoted figures that are available from reputable sites... nothing more.. you made the assumptions :)

    Sorry, I meant it's 30% more than your figures...you quoted GBP25k and EUR35k... very misleading figures when in reality the guys in London - which has similar costs to Dublin according to Mercer - are on GBP35k. The guys in Ireland have a lower wage after the paycut + pension levy (ie your figures are out of date) plus the ludicrous living expenses that the bubble economy imposed on them. In addition, anyone who has lived and worked in both cities knows a 35k salary in London affords you a higher standard of living than same in Dublin. Cheers. :)


  • Options
    #155
    Welease
    Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    pearcider wrote: »
    Sorry, I meant it's 30% more than your figures...you quoted GBP25k and EUR35k... very misleading figures when in reality the guys in London - which has similar costs to Dublin according to Mercer - are on GBP35k. The guys in Ireland have a lower wage after the paycut + pension levy (ie your figures are out of date) plus the ludicrous living expenses that the bubble economy imposed on them. In addition, anyone who has lived and worked in both cities knows a 35k salary in London affords you a higher standard of living than same in Dublin. Cheers. :)

    Source for this 35K salary? The NHS london weighting is still below 30K from my sources..

    And btw.. how can you quote Mercer as saying Dublin is as expensive as London.. When your table shows London is more expensive, but in the same paragraph claim "a 35k salary in London affords you a higher standard of living than same in Dublin." :)


  • Options
    #156
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭pearcider


    Welease wrote: »
    Source for this 35K salary? The NHS london weighting is still below 30K from my sources..

    And btw.. how can you quote Mercer as saying Dublin is as expensive as London.. When your table shows London is more expensive, but in the same paragraph claim "a 35k salary in London affords you a higher standard of living than same in Dublin." :)

    Not really. The Range 5s get GBP27k+20% = GBP32k...putting into euros gives EUR36.5k (fx spot) which I suppose more or less equals the Irish pay when Londons (marginal) increased cost of living is factored into account. So...not much in it is all I'm saying...certainly not the 40% difference you suggest in your original post by quoting the salaries without even factoring the currency exchange difference.

    Of course even this anaylsis is incomplete since we don't take account of allowances, working conditions and pensions.

    To use your original example of a paramedic to illustrate the real or otherwise wage competitiveness between the two countries actually shows there is virtually no difference. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Welease
    Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    pearcider wrote: »
    To use your original example of a paramedic to illustrate the real or otherwise wage competitiveness between the two countries actually shows there is virtually no difference. :)

    So you believe wages across the board in Ireland are essentially equal to the rest of Europe?

    And by the way, you keep accusing me of using misleading figues, when it's you for whatever reason that seems intent on ignoring the actual initial point and cooking the numbers to suit you own agenda..

    Simple fact.. a paramedic living in Bath will have a starting salary of 23.5k Euros.. a paramedic in Sligo will have a starting salary of 29.7K Euro's...


  • Options
    #158
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭pearcider


    Welease wrote: »
    So you believe wages across the board in Ireland are essentially equal to the rest of Europe?

    Jaysus, no! :eek:

    I'm only talking about your specific example...just saying that medics in the UK and Ireland earn basically the same wage for the same work. Of course, they haven't cut public sector wages by 10% (yet) in the UK...looking at their current deficit and the huge Labour government spending spree of the past decade (not unlike our own)and even accounting for the devaluation of sterling, the tories might well have to.

    After that, I can only suppose it's a race to the bottom.


  • Options
    #159
    Welease
    Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    pearcider wrote: »
    Jaysus, no! :eek:

    I'm only talking about your specific example...just saying that medics in the UK and Ireland earn basically the same wage for the same work. Of course, they haven't cut public sector wages by 10% (yet) in the UK...looking at their current deficit and the huge Labour government spending spree of the past decade (not unlike our own)and even accounting for the devaluation of sterling, the tories might well have to.

    After that, I can only suppose it's a race to the bottom.

    But they don't... you keep cooking the figures with london weightings etc... and not factoring in your benefits etc..

    Simple fact.. a paramedic living in Bath will have a starting salary of 23.5k Euros.. a paramedic in Sligo will have a starting salary of 29.7K Euro's and you get (i believe) a defined benefit pension...

    And it doesn't need to be a race to the bottom if people start accepting in order to justify there extra pay then need to find ways of delivering that extra value... If they can't then it probably justtified to claim they are overpaid.

    Edit - If it helps to make the point.. apparently Paramedic start salaries in France are 1300 Euro per month.. (15,600 Euro per year).. although they are physicians as france doesn't employ specific paramedics.


  • Options
    #160
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭pearcider


    Welease wrote: »
    Simple fact.. a paramedic living in Bath will have a starting salary of 23.5k Euros.. a paramedic in Sligo will have a starting salary of 29.7K Euro's and you get (i believe) a defined benefit pension...

    On paper, it's a bad deal for the guy in Bath...good deal for the Sligo person alright. But you can't use one off examples like that. How many paramedics live in Sligo? How much does a pint cost in Sligo? A house? A car? Does Bath have more attractive women than Sligo?

    I'm using the two capital cities where the biggest chunk of the public sector employees live and work.

    WE could go into it endless detail with individual examples but I'm way too busy for that and my point is made I think. :D

    You were the only person abusing the facts when you suggested there is a 10k differential between the 2 salaries (ie 35k vs 25k) in the first post that I called you out on. That much is clear. :cool:

    I bid you good night. :p


  • Options
    #161
    Welease
    Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    pearcider wrote: »
    On paper, it's a bad deal for the guy in Bath...good deal for the Sligo person alright. But you can't use one off examples like that. How many paramedics live in Sligo? How much does a pint cost in Sligo? A house? A car? Does Bath have more attractive women than Sligo?

    I'm using the two capital cities where the biggest chunk of the public sector employees live and work.

    WE could go into it endless detail with individual examples but I'm way too busy for that and my point is made I think. :D

    You were the only person abusing the facts when you suggested there is a 10k differential between the 2 salaries (ie 35k vs 25k) in the first post that I called you out on. That much is clear. :cool:

    I bid you good night. :p

    I never suggested there was a 10K differential, I also never stated it was 35K vs 25K as you contintually suggest. I stated, and you even quoted me..
    Welease wrote: »
    Some quick googling suggests top pay band for paramedics in the UK is ~25K (STG) and in Ireland it's ~35K (Euro) without taking into account unsociable hours and other benefits such as pensions.

    There is one key important difference, which doesn't appear to be that "clear" to you (HINT:- Its the bit I even had in CAPS for emphasis)...
    If that was your sole point, then can I LOL@YOU? /wink

    As for the rest of your logic, it's simply flawed. The best case you can come up with, using all the stacked bonus's you could find would be for top level cost paramedic in the UK (London) to be equal an average cost Irish paramedic. But your own logic just proves my point.. The vast majority of paramedics in the UK don't receive London bonus's, so therefore work for a minimum of 20% less than their Irish counterparts (there are about 10m people in London and about 50m outside, again basic logic dictates you are wrong thinking more paramedics would be based in London, not withstanding only inner London gets the full bonus).

    Reducing the discussion to it's fundamental elements.. the basic post qualification salary scale starts for a UK paramedic at 23.5K EUROS and in Ireland it's 29.7K EUROS.That is a fact...
    To the original point, for those who earn the average within those pay scales, do Irish paramedics provide 25% more value than their UK counterparts to justify the differential in a competitive manner?

    The answer is probably no... Do I provide an equivalent 25% over my European counterparts (and in my case 300-400% more than my Asian counterparts)?The answer is also probably no.. Unless we are in a position to start addressing the value component then we will continue to have limited appeal to foreign investment.

    So regretfully, you appear to be wrong on pretty much every point.. that much IS clear :cool:

    As a country, if people don't want to be in a "race to the bottom", we need to stop doing exactly what you are doing here and cooking figures to make us look competitive in a best case unrealistic scenario. Noone falls for that crap, which is precisely why we are losing jobs abroad..
    We need to understand the real cost difference, identify where the value opportunities are, and drive to deliver that visible value. If people cannot do that, then they need to accept that in a lot of cases, they are too costly and their jobs may go elsewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Head The Wall
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    pearcider wrote: »
    The guys in Ireland have a lower wage after the paycut + pension levy (ie your figures are out of date) plus the ludicrous living expenses that the bubble economy imposed on them. In addition, anyone who has lived and worked in both cities knows a 35k salary in London affords you a higher standard of living than same in Dublin. Cheers. :)

    I think you meant to say the ludicrous living expenses people imposed on themselves. I and many others didn't impose these expenses on ourselves and don't see now why we have to subsidise other peoples bad choices


  • Options
    #163
    The_Honeybadger
    Registered Users Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    Head The Wall wrote: »
    I think you meant to say the ludicrous living expenses people imposed on themselves. I and many others didn't impose these expenses on ourselves and don't see now why we have to subsidise other peoples bad choices
    True to a point, mainly regarding houses and new cars, but we all paid over the odds for alot of things. You couldn't get away from the price of groceries, insurance, alcohol (if you drink) and other things which were inflicted on all of us. I honestly don't know how tourists tolerated the rip-off culture here when they visited. Many (myself included :D) were frugal and lived within our means and are not now tied to massive debts but I would still say I paid more than I should have for many things over the years. The general public just didn't see value for money as a priority and their wallets were duly emptied as a result.


  • Options
    #164
    WalterMitty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,582 ✭✭✭WalterMitty


    mickeyk wrote: »
    True to a point, mainly regarding houses and new cars, but we all paid over the odds for alot of things. You couldn't get away from the price of groceries, insurance, alcohol (if you drink) and other things which were inflicted on all of us. I honestly don't know how tourists tolerated the rip-off culture here when they visited. Many (myself included :D) were frugal and lived within our means and are not now tied to massive debts but I would still say I paid more than I should have for many things over the years. The general public just didn't see value for money as a priority and their wallets were duly emptied as a result.
    Even during boom , i shopped around for best value , used lidl and aldi, searched online for food deals in all the shops , didnt take out debt, didnt buy flashy cars and gadgets etc.


  • Options
    #165
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    WalterMitty wrote: »
    Even during boom , i shopped around for best value , used lidl and aldi, searched online for food deals in all the shops , didnt take out debt, didnt buy flashy cars and gadgets etc.


    But if you went to the doctor or the dentist, needed a solicitor in court, bought house or car insurance, had a current bank account, needed physiotherapy, travelled on public transport, filled your heating oil tank or switched on your gas central heating, turned a light bulb on, put petrol in your car, had your small business audited, and needed a shrink at the end of it all to cope with it, you were ripped off for each and everyone of those.


  • Options
    #166
    Smiegal
    Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭Smiegal


    Saadyst wrote: »
    I find it hilarious when public sector workers mention "paying taxes".

    what I find hilarious is that a huge amount of what is earned by a public sector employee is eventualy returned to his/her employee via revenue.... With the obvious exeption of whatever is spent abroad... Thus in reality the cost of ps wage bill is artificial.


  • Options
    #167
    MaceFace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    Smiegal wrote: »
    what I find hilarious is that a huge amount of what is earned by a public sector employee is eventualy returned to his/her employee via revenue.... With the obvious exeption of whatever is spent abroad... Thus in reality the cost of ps wage bill is artificial.

    How about the imported goods a person buys?


  • Options
    #168
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Smiegal wrote: »
    what I find hilarious is that a huge amount of what is earned by a public sector employee is eventualy returned to his/her employee via revenue.... With the obvious exeption of whatever is spent abroad... Thus in reality the cost of ps wage bill is artificial.

    If thats the mentality of people in the public service then we are f****d!


  • Options
    #169
    Smiegal
    Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭Smiegal


    MaceFace wrote: »
    How about the imported goods a person buys?

    I will continue to make these one sided comments in response to any opposite one sided comments. In reality I cansee the two sides to the argument but what p****s me off are people who are willing to make outlandish comments about the while thing.

    But... it is a fundamental differance between a private sector employer and the public sector employer (Government) in that the wage a private sector employer pays out will never be seen again by him/her, however when the government pays let's say 50,000 to it's employee the it gets back (these are estimates!!!!) around 35-45% initially through income tax, PRSI, levies and any other pre-deductions that tax is paid on. Then of courseyou have VAT etc. on what ever he or she spends the remainder of the momey on.

    Food for thought is all as it's some something I haven't seen mentioned before...

    And in response to the original question of the thread... Of course it's jealousy. People in the public sector are obviously trying to protect their income... That is only human nature at the end of the day for Gods sake. Yes cuts must happen but only to an extent... After that if they keep happening to the same sector of people well you'll eventually get there backs up... It's HUMAN NATURE...


  • Options
    #170
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,894 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Smiegal wrote:
    Food for thought is all as it's some something I haven't seen mentioned before...

    It has been mentioned before. It was also mentioned on the threads about social welfare, as in "why should there be an upper limit? It all gets spent in the economy anyway".
    Smiegal wrote:
    And in response to the original question of the thread... Of course it's jealousy. People in the public sector are obviously trying to protect their income... That is only human nature at the end of the day for Gods sake. Yes cuts must happen but only to an extent... After that if they keep happening to the same sector of people well you'll eventually get there backs up... It's HUMAN NATURE...

    It is human nature to protect what you have and people have every right to be upset and complain. But do people really have to take the country down with them? We've seen what happens in Greece when the unions get their way. The public sector pay bill accounts for a third of Government spending so there's no way it can be left untouched. But we all know a good portion of this is waste through inefficiencies. Where was the union effort to find a way to achieve savings without paycuts? It's all been obstruction, obstruction and a joke of an unpaid leave proposal presented right before Budget when it was too late to change anything. The plan for next year was to introduce some sort of reform in the PS to avoid paycuts for workers but given that the unions have vowed to oppose this every step of the way, who knows what's going to happen with people's salaries.


  • Options
    #171
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Smiegal the fact you pay taxes is not to cover your wages its to allow you have the services of living in a civilised society. Saying that your wages don't really count on the bottom line of economy is deluded at best and if thats what the unions are feeding you I suggest you cancel your membership and save that subscription fee.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    changes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 959 ✭✭✭changes


    Stark wrote: »
    The plan for next year was to introduce some sort of reform in the PS to avoid paycuts for workers but given that the unions have vowed to oppose this every step of the way, who knows what's going to happen with people's salaries.

    Thats sort of like - they've punched you in the face twice last year but if you agree to do what they say then they might not punch you in the face again next year too.

    Last years punches haven't been forgiven yet, so talk of another punch next year is like a rag to a bull.


  • Options
    #173
    stevoman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭stevoman


    To answer your original question OP. Yes the private sector is jealous of the public sector.


  • Options
    #174
    Smiegal
    Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭Smiegal


    changes wrote: »
    Thats sort of like - they've punched you in the face twice last year but if you agree to do what they say then they might not punch you in the face again next year too.

    Last years punches haven't been forgiven yet, so talk of another punch next year is like a rag to a bull.

    Brilliant analogy!! Says it all really. Private sector is happy to see ps workers (irregardless of how much they are paid or how productive they are) punched over and over again.... and when they see them trying to fight back they are disgusted!!!! I mean who the he'll do Public Sector workers think they are trying to protect their pay....

    I also heard Cowen saying in relation to The Hanger 6 debacle that Governments can't just march in tearing up contracts..... Eh... Hello... So it's okay to tear up someones contract to save money (which I agree with by the way for the record) but its not okay to tear up another contract that will create 300 jobs.... Says it all really!


  • Options
    #175
    WalterMitty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,582 ✭✭✭WalterMitty


    Public sector, this is a zero sum game, maintaining current pay levels and staff numbers means the rest society must take a disproportionate burden through higher taxes on top of pays cuts and unemployment.

    Does anyone really think that fianna fail would cut public sector pay,dole payments and pensions if it could be avoided? Fianna Fail are a populist party who always looked after public sector ,pensioners and unemployed as these people give them a lot of votes in return, the fact they are cutting these people shows how bad things are and unavoidable cuts are.


  • Options
    #176
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,988 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Smiegal wrote: »
    Brilliant analogy!! Says it all really. Private sector is happy to see ps workers (irregardless of how much they are paid or how productive they are) punched over and over again.... and when they see them trying to fight back they are disgusted!!!!
    Well it's because for every refusal to reform or accept a pay cut, both public and private sectors will get punched in the form of taxes, welfare cuts, etc.

    It's also because many private sector workers have been punched often from their own companies and don't want this extra hit.

    It's also a lot to do with the (perceived) OTT reaction of the PS/CS to their cuts. Course you shouldn't be happy, but it could be a lot worse.
    That and the refusal to admit the need for reform (even before it was threatened) and acknowledge the wastage and neccessity for an overhaul. It's frustrating to say the least.


  • Options
    #177
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,894 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Smiegal wrote: »
    Brilliant analogy!! Says it all really. Private sector is happy to see ps workers (irregardless of how much they are paid or how productive they are) punched over and over again.... and when they see them trying to fight back they are disgusted!!!! I mean who the he'll do Public Sector workers think they are trying to protect their pay....

    I'd prefer to be paid more. I'm still going to do my job until something better comes along though. In fact, if I didn't do my job, at best I wouldn't see a sniff of an "increment" come review time (probably won't anyway as we're in this recession thing), at worst I'd face dismissal and living on €200 a week on the dole. There seems to be an element in the PS unions that thinks they can dig their heels in, refuse to do what they're paid to do and then reap the rewards.


  • Options
    #178
    Smiegal
    Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭Smiegal


    ixoy wrote: »
    Well it's because for every refusal to reform or accept a pay cut, both public and private sectors will get punched in the form of taxes, welfare cuts, etc.

    It's also because many private sector workers have been punched often from their own companies and don't want this extra hit.

    It's also a lot to do with the (perceived) OTT reaction of the PS/CS to their cuts. Course you shouldn't be happy, but it could be a lot worse.
    That and the refusal to admit the need for reform (even before it was threatened) and acknowledge the wastage and neccessity for an overhaul. It's frustrating to say the least.


    Frustrating for who exactly?????? Answer = Everyone!!!

    Unions, like alot of other Organisations, have alot to answer for, I agree and anyone who says the public sector does not need reform needs there heads checked but you cant keep hitting everyone over and over again and then expect them to roll over and play ball or threaten them that we'll hit you again... Come on... Commons sense says people will naturally resist that kind of attidude.

    Point is the second set of cuts were not done fairly. The people lower down the scale should not have been hit at all the last time, and the people at the top should have been hit much much harder.

    As I said, Unions have alot to answer for, but I shudder to think what it would be like with out them. Every working class person in the country would be trodden on by there employer simply because thier employer would have that ability. An employers number one goal is to make money and we would make it so much easier for them (at our own expense) if we were to do away with unions completly!


  • Options
    #179
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,983 ✭✭✭conorhal


    changes wrote: »
    Thats sort of like - they've punched you in the face twice last year but if you agree to do what they say then they might not punch you in the face again next year too.

    Last years punches haven't been forgiven yet, so talk of another punch next year is like a rag to a bull.


    Yeah.... So what your saying is that the private sector should take your beating for you then? No thanks, my employers already thrown in a few diggs, I'm smarting as it is.


  • Options
    #180
    Smiegal
    Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭Smiegal


    Stark wrote: »
    I'd prefer to be paid more. I'm still going to do my job until something better comes along though. In fact, if I didn't do my job, at best I wouldn't see a sniff of an "increment" come review time (probably won't anyway as we're in this recession thing), at worst I'd face dismissal and living on €200 a week on the dole. There seems to be an element in the PS unions that thinks they can dig their heels in, refuse to do what they're paid to do and then reap the rewards.


    Stark, its called being a Union... their members contracts have been torn up in thier faces... what do you expect them to do??

    We all know why the cuts have tp happen so you dont need to go into that again but honestly... what in Gods name do you expect a Union to do in such a situation. Their prime goal is to protect their members pay and condition for crying out loud...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,894 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Smiegal wrote: »
    As I said, Unions have alot to answer for, but I shudder to think what it would be like with out them. Every working class person in the country would be trodden on by there employer simply because thier employer would have that ability. An employers number one goal is to make money and we would make it so much easier for them (at our own expense) if we were to do away with unions completly!

    Every employer needs good staff and it's in their interest to pay a fair wage so their good staff don't go elsewhere. Problem is costs get way out of hand if you need to also need to pay the deadwood the premium rate in order to attempt to cover the necessary staff. There's also minimum wage to protect people who have no skills that make them worth keeping. A healthy labour market that offers choice to prospective employees is worth more than a heavily unionised labour market imo.
    Smiegal wrote:
    Point is the second set of cuts were not done fairly. The people lower down the scale should not have been hit at all the last time, and the people at the top should have been hit much much harder.

    15% is a nasty hit and that's not taking into account many other forms of remuneration that were taken away. Some doctors and consultants are down nearly 40% from their last year salary. Meanwhile people earning up to €38k for clerical jobs that barely pay over €20k in the private sector are taking cuts that are barely above the rate of deflation, and in some cases still climbing the increment scale so having the cuts balanced out. Obviously, earning less than €38k is a huge problem if your spouse loses his/her job due to our retarded social welfare system, but that's a whole other issue. The fairest solution would be to have individualised salary reviews for everyone, but that's generally not feasible in a unionised culture.
    Smiegal wrote:
    Stark, its called being a Union... their members contracts have been torn up in thier faces... what do you expect them to do??

    What contracts were torn up? I doubt the Towards 2016 payscale increases that people were getting over the years were included in legally binding terms in people's contracts so I don't see why contracts would need to be rewritten in order to row back on those increases.


Advertisement