First Jack O'Connor, now David Begg - are the unions scared of FG

Tim Robbins · 18-02-2011 5:33pm

almighty1 wrote: »

You really are missing out on my point entirely aren't you? What I'm trying to argue (that areas of the public sector are "leafy") has nothing got to do with this supposed pandering you are referring to.

We don't expect any special treatment Tim. Is obviously in your agenda to give us our own special treatment.

We are entitled to express how much or how little value for money we get when paying our taxes. It is unfair for anyone in the public sector to try and stop that discussion taking place and using emotional arguments.

I never called all public sector people wasters. My issue is with the way if someone makes any sort of comment about wages and cost we hear the proverbial

"oh how about you say that when you need an ambulance driver".

almighty1 · 18-02-2011 5:39pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We are entitled to express how much or how little value for money we get when paying our taxes. It is unfair for anyone in the public sector to try and stop that discussion taking place and using emotional arguments.

I never called all public sector people wasters. My issue is with the way if someone makes any sort of comment about wages and cost we hear the proverbial

"oh how about you say that when you need an ambulance driver".

Of course you are entitled to express your opinion Tim but it had no relevance to the original argument in relation to the "leafy" public sector condition debate I was having.

My response was in direct response to that. I wasn't looking for pity or pandering but simply disproving that simplistic statement from whoever Mr Anti-Public-Sector was.

I hope I wont have to explain this point for a 4th time.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 5:40pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We are entitled to express how much or how little value for money we get when paying our taxes. It is unfair for anyone in the public sector to try and stop that discussion taking place and using emotional arguments.

I never called all public sector people wasters. My issue is with the way if someone makes any sort of comment about wages and cost we hear the proverbial

"oh how about you say that when you need an ambulance driver".

Again tim your wrapping a piece of text in quotation marks as if someone said it on this thread, when they did not!

If it is fair to discuss the wages as a portion of our tax then it is also justified to mention the work these people carry out.
Other wise you seem to be suggesting a utopian society where everyone is paid the same regardless of work, if your not then a persons wage is going to be directly related to the functions performed in the earning of that wage.
In which case pointing out the functions of these jobs is relevant in a dicussion which has narrowed its focus to their wage.

Nelson Muntz · 18-02-2011 5:44pm

The unions & PS defenders love to hide behind front line workers when discussing the cost of the PS.

Do they think the general population is stupid? No one is saying get rid of nurses or guards or firemen. It is the 3000 people in the HSE that don't even know what their job is & 3000 people in the HSE HR dept that should be trimmed down.

Despite what the beardies tell you, there are plenty of useless admin staff in the PS that serve no purpose.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 5:47pm

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

The unions & PS defenders love to hide behind front line workers when discussing the cost of the PS.

Do they think the general population is stupid? No one is saying get rid of nurses or guards or firemen. It is the 3000 people in the HSE that don't even know what their job is & 3000 people in the HSE HR dept that should be trimmed down.

Despite what the beardies tell you, there are plenty of useless admin staff in the PS that serve no purpose.

How do you know there are 3000 people in the HSE who dont even know their job?

How can you be sure there are 3000 redundancies needed in the Hr department of the HSE?

almighty1 · 18-02-2011 5:49pm

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

Despite what the beardies tell you, there are plenty of useless admin staff in the PS that serve no purpose.

I agree. At worst lots of these functions could be absorbed into other people functions.

Nelson Muntz · 18-02-2011 5:54pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How do you know there are 3000 people in the HSE who dont even know their job?

How can you be sure there are 3000 redundancies needed in the Hr department of the HSE?

First part was on newstalk the other day

Second part, I never said to make them all redundant. I just don't think 3000 HR staff when a recruitment freeze is in place are required.

On another note, why do we still have the same amount of construction industry related PS staff as during the boom? There is 0 construction. Why do we need the same amount of PS staff now?

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 5:55pm

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

First part was on newstalk the other day

Second part, I never said to make them all redundant. I just don't think 3000 HR staff when a recruitment freeze is in place are required.

On another note, why do we still have the same amount of construction industry related PS staff as during the boom? There is 0 construction. Why do we need the same amount of PS staff now?

What was the source on newstalk, how credible was the source?

Trimmed = cut. Or is that just my understanding fo the word trim?

GalwayGunner · 18-02-2011 5:58pm

almighty1 wrote: »

You really are missing out on my point entirely aren't you? What I'm trying to argue (that areas of the public sector are "leafy") has nothing got to do with this supposed pandering you are referring to.

We don't expect any special treatment Tim. Is obviously in your agenda to give us our own special treatment.

I'd really love to know what teachers/nurses/ambulance drivers/gardaí were expecting the first day they walked into the job:

"What do you mean this isn't a 9 to 5 job?!"
"Wait - are those sick people over there?!"
"Why are all those little people running around screaming - what am I supposed to do with them?!"

Stop expecting special treatment for the jobs you do - you do a job and you get paid. As much as you'd like to expect it you're not going to get canonised or get a statue erected in your honour. You knew what the job was when you went in - the same way Private Sector employees knew that they wouldn't get a job for life, or 3/4 months holidays a year, or a state pension in the jobs they chose. You are not automatically better people because of it. Your job suits your aptitude - you picked it freely so deal with it.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 6:00pm

GalwayGunner wrote: »

I'd really love to know what teachers/nurses/ambulance drivers/gardaí were expecting the first day they walked into the job:

"What do you mean this isn't a 9 to 5 job?!"
"Wait - are those sick people over there?!"
"Why are all those little people running around screaming - what am I supposed to do with them?!"

Stop expecting special treatment for the jobs you do - you do a job and you get paid. As much as you'd like to expect it you're not going to get canonised or get a statue erected in your honour. You knew what the job was when you went in - the same way Private Sector employees knew that they wouldn't get a job for life, or 3/4 months holidays a year, or a state pension in the jobs they chose. You are not automatically better people because of it. Your job suits your aptitude - you picked it freely so deal with it.

Another person for made up quotes and assumptions based only on how good they sound in your rant! :rolleyes:

Tim Robbins · 18-02-2011 6:01pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Again tim your wrapping a piece of text in quotation marks as if someone said it on this thread, when they did not!

They didn't say it verbatim but that's the sort of thing I heard 10,0000000 times.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 6:04pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They didn't say it verbatim but that's the sort of thing I heard 10,0000000 times.

So every one of the 300,000 public servants has on average said this to you 330 times :eek:
You sure know a lot of public servants.

No one said it but it makes your argument look less ridiculous when you use made up quotes, isnt that the real reason?

wellsir · 18-02-2011 6:09pm

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

I dont support any political party but I would like to see a FG OM if it would mean that something was done about the public sector reform that the country desperately needs
Labour will just pander to their friends in the unions :mad:

Couldn't agree more.

We need some old blushirt principals....spend the money in your pocket and nothing else. give us the hardship now and lets get on with it...ffs
Fooking unions with their time off to cash cheques bull**** and their heads with them massive salaries.
makes my blood boil
:mad:

:mad:

gizmo555 · 18-02-2011 6:25pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How can you be sure there are 3000 redundancies needed in the Hr department of the HSE?

3,000 is an exagerration.

But the head of HR in the HSE is on the record as saying (during an RTE radio interview late last year) that he has about 2,000 staff in his department and that he only needs 700, or at most 800.

Tim Robbins · 18-02-2011 6:32pm

The examiner has a piece talking about Fine Gael giving out the Unions...

http://www.irishexaminer.com/home/fg-faces-union-fury-145719.html

liveline · 18-02-2011 8:37pm

Its a pity Enda Kenny doesn't have the balls to stand up to the unions

http://www.breakingnews.ie/election/news/kenny-apologises-to-begg-after-vested-interests-website-reference-494053.html

There seems to be a mindset that the unions represent poor unfortunate down trodden workers. But the reality is that a lot of these workers are privileged public sector workers who are overpaid, underworked and entitled to extraordinarily generous pensions.

I know quite a few people that work in the public sector. And there seems to be quite a divide. There are those who want serious public sector reform. They want to be paid based on performance, not length of service. They do the job that needs to be done, not just what's in their job description. They don't give a damn about having security of tenure because they know they work hard. And they are constantly frustrated by the militant attitude of their colleagues.

Then there's the other lot. They only do exactly what's in their job description (if even).. they moan about having to contribute towards their own pension. They show complete ignorance when they claim that they gained nothing from the Celtic Tiger. These people have often never had a real private sector job and come from public sector families.

The problem is the unions represent the second type. They represent the lazy and incompetent. But yet hard working decent public sector workers are scared to stand up to the unions.

In the private sector, it seems to be going the same way. The union leaders constantly vilify the self-employed. They constantly talk about 'working people' as if self-employed people just sit on their arses all day and let people make loads of dosh for them. When I was a student I worked for a multinational for about a year that is unionised. I always remember the shop steward being the most arrogant and lazy person in my department. He would start fights with management for no apparent reason and constantly found something to complain about. One day this guy asked me to join the union. When I told him I wasn't interested, he threw a wobbly, eventually telling me to "F-off". The funny thing I realised was that the unions helped keep people like him in jobs. They always look out of the Lowest Common Denominator.

The fat cats like Jack O'Connor, David Begg and Blair Horan have helped destroy our country. Our politicians clearly aren't prepared to take them on. They only way we can stand up to their bullying tactics is if decent hard working union members do it themselves.

henryporter · 18-02-2011 8:49pm

ouch Kenny just lost whatever pair of balls he had been growing over the past two weeks:mad:

femur61 · 18-02-2011 9:00pm

Of course he saw his wage increse in the celtic tiger years and if numbers are reduced the subscriptions to unions will decline. But i kno people in PS have cancelled subscription to their union.

blue_steel · 18-02-2011 9:03pm

so much for enda standing up to the unions. Guess his PR gurus reminded him that there are several hundred thousand union members who intend to vote in this election. Labour will determine who forms the next government.

sollar · 18-02-2011 9:16pm

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

First part was on newstalk the other day

Second part, I never said to make them all redundant. I just don't think 3000 HR staff when a recruitment freeze is in place are required.

Newstalk are hardly reliable, aren't they owned by the biggest tax avoider in the state.

Also, how would they possibly know these things. There has never been a study done its all just guessing.

As for HR - 3000 don't even work in HR.

Dyr · 18-02-2011 9:25pm

telekon wrote: »

Yes. We can all agree with that.

I said the unions were "some bit culpable"...which they were.

Whats the problem??

Problem is that I don't think its true. You could argue that they make us uncompetitive or that they're adding to our national debt now that we're in hock to the IMF but the unions are not the people who blew the arse out of our economy.

Idbatterim · 18-02-2011 10:00pm

Id definitely put the unions up there with the most culpable for the current crisis. The thing is though, that buck stops with the government, we elect them to make decisions in OUR interest. The government were the ones that approved bench marking, the massive increase in PS numbers etc... Effectively all a union is, is a business that tries to get as much money for as little work as possible. They really are a parasites! I could understand the purpose of unions during the Industrial Revolution etc, but there are no so many labor laws, appeal processes etc, that I really wish they could be banned!

macbog · 18-02-2011 10:36pm

blue_steel wrote: »

so much for enda standing up to the unions. Guess his PR gurus reminded him that there are several hundred thousand union members who intend to vote in this election. Labour will determine who forms the next government.

Workers voting for FG would be like turkey's voting for christmas !

kildarecommuter · 19-02-2011 10:34am

Idbatterim wrote: »

Id definitely put the unions up there with the most culpable for the current crisis. The thing is though, that buck stops with the government, we elect them to make decisions in OUR interest. The government were the ones that approved bench marking, the massive increase in PS numbers etc... Effectively all a union is, is a business that tries to get as much money for as little work as possible. They really are a parasites! I could understand the purpose of unions during the Industrial Revolution etc, but there are no so many labor laws, appeal processes etc, that I really wish they could be banned!

And if the Labour Laws are axed where will you be then?
I work in the Private Sector always have and am in middle management but having worked in both unionised and non unionised employments I can say generally speaking the unionised ones had better conditions.
A unoin is not a business its the members who decide union policy so the policy goes up not down as in a business.

murf313 · 19-02-2011 11:13am

danbohan wrote: »

how can we justify having higher public sector salaries than Germany, the country which is bailing us out

reading posts on the boards from public sector workers they do try and justify their excessive salarys , cost of living here ,dont you know , hopefully a very strong fine gael govt will bring some reality to their pampered lives

Excessive salaries?? Like to generalise much???

I nearly choked on my grape that my servant was putting in my mouth when I read that..... :rolleyes:

blue_steel · 19-02-2011 1:02pm

danbohan wrote: »

how can we justify having higher public sector salaries than Germany, the country which is bailing us out

reading posts on the boards from public sector workers they do try and justify their excessive salarys , cost of living here ,dont you know , hopefully a very strong fine gael govt will bring some reality to their pampered lives

Private sector workers here are paid more than their counterparts in Germany as well. So if you follow your rationale to its conclusion then all workers should take a pay cut. IE INCREASED TAXES! This is something which most left-wingers (inc LAB) support but most ring-wingers (inc FG) don't. Your tirade against the public sector is simply a smoke screen to externalise the problem and avoid taking any of the pain yourself. Its human nature to look for a scape goat and a minority to blame, but the more broad-minded among us have risen above these baser instincts.

tomo536 · 19-02-2011 1:21pm

telekon wrote: »

Very true. When I think of Jack O'Connor I think of the time he was loudly booed by fellow workers while going on off on one of his Big Jim Larkin-esque speechs at one of the rallys and unfairly attacking Pat Kenny on his 'trophy house'.

Oh Jack, you and your €124,000 salary make me laugh...

was at that rally and how jack was going to bring us to phase two which would have been strike action,then he disappeared into a black hole for awhile,then came back and sold us down the river.I was a member of siptu,and after jack did this no more siptu for me shower of idiots who only look after themselves

Lockstep · 19-02-2011 1:25pm

Independent maintains public sector unions were mainly involved with FF whereas private sector unions maintained links with Labour.

Link

jonnyone · 19-02-2011 8:49pm

blue_steel wrote: »

so much for enda standing up to the unions. Guess his PR gurus reminded him that there are several hundred thousand union members who intend to vote in this election. Labour will determine who forms the next government.

Thats democracy.

Killer Pigeon · 19-02-2011 9:13pm

Lockstep wrote: »

Independent maintains public sector unions were mainly involved with FF whereas private sector unions maintained links with Labour.

Link

What about ICTU?

First Jack O'Connor, now David Begg - are the unions scared of FG

Comments