Do TD's have a Contract of Employment?? If so a some in breach of their contract?

whatnext · 03-07-2012 11:30am #1

Just curious with the current fad of TD's encouraging people to not obey the law in relation to various charges, taxes and bogs.

Surely they must have a contract of employment outlining the requirements for their job? Are TD's set up as PAYE staff or are they self employed?

I'm only curious because if I did as some are doing in my job I'd be in breach of my contract and dismissed, my personal beliefs and views would be respected, but I still have to publicly draw the company line.

They are employed by the state (or is it their constituents?) and not their political party so my understanding is that their company line should be that of the majority (when if comes to the law)?

Please excuse my inability to set out my question/point more concisely.....

also excuse the typo in the heading.......

FreudianSlippers · 03-07-2012 12:00pm

My understanding is that they are not employees but rather paid representatives of the people. They are subject, however, to a code of conduct. If it cannot be found by a quick google search then you may need to do an FoI request.

whatnext · 03-07-2012 2:33pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

My understanding is that they are not employees but rather paid representatives of the people. They are subject, however, to a code of conduct. If it cannot be found by a quick google search then you may need to do an FoI request.

I did a fair amount of Googling and came up blank...... I was just curious, Its not that I would have the b@lls to do anything about it:(

Sleepy · 04-07-2012 4:28pm

I'd certainly be of the opinion that TD's should not be encouraging tax evasion.

Personally, I'd love to see their election manifestos be considered their contracts: go back on the views you've been elected to represent and you're out.

Am Chile · 04-07-2012 4:54pm

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd certainly be of the opinion that TD's should not be encouraging tax evasion.

Personally, I'd love to see their election manifestos be considered their contracts: go back on the views you've been elected to represent and you're out.

In that case I hope you d in favour of fine gael being kicked out considering, they have went back on their word regarding property taxes. or would you be in favour of labour being kicked out for promising no water charges?

Fianna Fail’s proposal, now endorsed by the Labour Party, to introduce by
2014 an annual, recurring residential property tax on the family home is unfair.

fairer
alternatives to Fianna Fail’s and Labour’s recurring annual tax on the family home. The options would include:
• No extra local taxes, forcing local authorities to close non-priority services and / or to deliver increased
efficiencies;
• Increased local user charges for waste etc.; or
• The option of a local “site sale profits tax”. Such a tax would be levied on the profit made from the site
value on the sale of a residence (sales proceeds, less cost indexed by inflation, less stamp duty paid and
less home improvements)

http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Fine%20Gael%20Manifesto%20low-res.pdf

Fianna Fail’s proposal, now endorsed by the Labour Party, to introduce by 2014 an annual, recurring
residential property tax on the family home is unfair for three reasons:
• The initial flat rate charge means that owners of houses in standard neighbourhoods will pay as much
as the owners of mansions.
• It will be difficult to pay for asset-rich but income poor households, particularly the elderly and the
unemployed; and
• It will be deeply unfair for a young generation that paid exorbitant amounts of stamp duty and VAT on
the purchases on over-valued houses, many of whom now find themselves in negative equity

http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/LessWasteLowerTaxesStrongerGrowth.pdf

The move by Environment Minister John Gormley to install a water meter in every home in Ireland represents a retrograde step towards the introduction of a regressive tax.

The Labour Party believes that water is a basic and fundamental need and should not be treated like a market commodity. Many people, particularly the very old and the very young are heavily reliant on water for their health and wellbeing, and the notion of placing a charge on it, is objectionable.

Charging for domestic water, in the light of our current taxation system, will only add to inequality, since such charges don't take account of people's ability to pay.

In addition, I believe that the €600m that Minister Gormley says installing metres will cost, seriously underestimates the scale of the project. I am aware that an estimate for a similar plan in 1996 came to £1bn, and that was when there were far fewer houses, and when overall costs were significantly lower.

There are more important issues that need to be dealt with, even within the context of the provision of water services. For example, as EEA point out today, there is a massive problem with leakage in water systems, with as much as 40 per cent of treated water, going to waste in some areas.

In addition, the level to which alternative sources of water are being used is very small. There should be encouragement for communities and for people to use grey water, treated waste water and harvested rain water.

These are areas that need be tackled before we start making rash decisions on slapping unfair charges on people who can ill afford them.

The Labour Party abolished water charges when Brendan Howlin was Environment Minister in the Rainbow Govt, 1996. We would oppose any attempt to reverse that move.

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/1260271868600677.html

Clip of Brendan Howlin on water charges.28 seconds in pre election 2011.

sarumite · 04-07-2012 9:51pm

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd certainly be of the opinion that TD's should not be encouraging tax evasion.

Personally, I'd love to see their election manifestos be considered their contracts: go back on the views you've been elected to represent and you're out.

Considering the nature of the Irish electoral system is likely to produce a coalition government whereby different parties have to work together (often with conflicts in their manifesto), such a stance could be unworkable. It would also require that the parties have all the information available to them, which is not always possible. It would be untenable for a party who has committed to certain spending/tax policies to do so if there is a sharper downturn in the economy. To force them to stick to their manifesto despite changes in circumstance would be somewhat foolish. At the end of the day, we get to give them a job appraisal at every GE.

RichardAnd · 04-07-2012 10:40pm

I'm almost certain that TDs do not have a contract because it doesn't seem to fit with what a politician is meant to be. A TD is supposed to represent a group of people but just what that entails could be any number of things. This is different to say, a computer programmer because he would be hired by a company to do a specific job and so it's easy to draw up a contract saying X, Y and Z.

I believe there is, as mentioned above, a code of ethics that TDs are meant to adhere to, for example there is a list of words that can't be used in the Dail. However I'm pretty sure these are just guidelines. Interestingly, there is a mechanism for the impeachment of the president but I have no idea what exists to remove a TD from office other than the pressure of his peers.

The issue of elected politicians advising people not to pay the household charge is interesting. The household charge became a law by passing through the same house wherein a number of elected opponents of the charge sat thus, there is a sense of irony to be hand. What can be said is that the leftist TDs who did stand against the household charge did so because they seem to believe it is morally wrong and against the wishes of the voters to whom they owe their seats. Whether that is lawful or nay, I have to say that it is commendable to stand for what one believes in.

Good loser · 05-07-2012 1:45am

RichardAnd wrote: »

I'm almost certain that TDs do not have a contract because it doesn't seem to fit with what a politician is meant to be. A TD is supposed to represent a group of people but just what that entails could be any number of things. This is different to say, a computer programmer because he would be hired by a company to do a specific job and so it's easy to draw up a contract saying X, Y and Z.

I believe there is, as mentioned above, a code of ethics that TDs are meant to adhere to, for example there is a list of words that can't be used in the Dail. However I'm pretty sure these are just guidelines. Interestingly, there is a mechanism for the impeachment of the president but I have no idea what exists to remove a TD from office other than the pressure of his peers.

The issue of elected politicians advising people not to pay the household charge is interesting. The household charge became a law by passing through the same house wherein a number of elected opponents of the charge sat thus, there is a sense of irony to be hand. What can be said is that the leftist TDs who did stand against the household charge did so because they seem to believe it is morally wrong and against the wishes of the voters to whom they owe their seats. Whether that is lawful or nay, I have to say that it is commendable to stand for what one believes in.

Do you really think they 'believe' in this opposition thing? That a socialist party opposes a property tax in principle, while calling for the introduction of a wealth tax? That if they were in power with the Troika in situ they wouldn't introduce this tax in the morning? That Joe Higgins et al would have the slightest problem justifying the volte face?

If you do I have to say you're way too pure for this debate.

Laminations · 05-07-2012 9:01am

Put it this way. If we had a socialist government who brought in a wealth tax, would you think it appropriate and commendable if right wing TDs toured the country telling rich people how to evade tax. Didnt Beverly Cooper Flynn get done for that? God if she only knew her defence could've been 'this is something I really believe in'. The time and place to make the case is in the Dail.

sarumite · 05-07-2012 9:17am

RichardAnd wrote: »

I'm almost certain that TDs do not have a contract because it doesn't seem to fit with what a politician is meant to be. A TD is supposed to represent a group of people but just what that entails could be any number of things. This is different to say, a computer programmer because he would be hired by a company to do a specific job and so it's easy to draw up a contract saying X, Y and Z.

I believe there is, as mentioned above, a code of ethics that TDs are meant to adhere to, for example there is a list of words that can't be used in the Dail. However I'm pretty sure these are just guidelines. Interestingly, there is a mechanism for the impeachment of the president but I have no idea what exists to remove a TD from office other than the pressure of his peers.

The issue of elected politicians advising people not to pay the household charge is interesting. The household charge became a law by passing through the same house wherein a number of elected opponents of the charge sat thus, there is a sense of irony to be hand. What can be said is that the leftist TDs who did stand against the household charge did so because they seem to believe it is morally wrong and against the wishes of the voters to whom they owe their seats. Whether that is lawful or nay, I have to say that it is commendable to stand for what one believes in.

I remember watching Grover Norquist discussing his "no new tax" pledge and he made the same argument, i.e. that he was sticking up for what he believes in. Jon Stewart (the interviewer) commented that focusing on no new taxes is a pretty easy stance to take as it will clearly gather wide support as no-one likes to pay takes and that if he really wanted to make a difference he would consider a more robust solution. I kind of feel the same about the hard left stance on household tax. Their argument is not very deep and their policies very light on detail (this was very apparant during the recent fiscal treaty vote). It pretty easy to be a protest party as you don't have to provide any detailed solutions or argue that tough decisions need to be made. It is even easier when you believe that it won't cost you a penny as you are claiming the money back from the taxpayer.

whatnext · 05-07-2012 4:05pm

So in theory anyway

It is ok for our elected representatives to encourage people not to obey the law and buy implication to break the law?

So if they were encouraging drink driving, paedophilia or drug dealing although morally unacceptable they would be ok if they were standing up for something they believed in?

christmas2012 · 05-07-2012 4:06pm

with all the sick days and falsley claiming travel expenses i would say there is a breach there..

Good loser · 05-07-2012 10:47pm

TDs who advocate law breaking are in contempt of the Dail and should be suspended without pay until they purge their contempt.

If there is no current law to cover this situation one should be introduced right away.

Do TD's have a Contract of Employment?? If so a some in breach of their contract?

Comments