Crippling Pension Levy

ixoy

Merch wrote: »

The Govt is in charge or should be, not the unions nor the public sectors.

True and the unions, for the most, represent only a sizeable minority of the employed (I think I saw 28% of the private sector is in unions). Nonetheless there's no harm in the government listening to the proposals and seeing if the suggestions lead to a decent solution that's fair for both union and non-union workers.

I'd be happy to get a social welfare payment and spend my time earning that by using my experience or labour to contribute to ongoing infrastructure projects.

That's great in theory but I think the argument against it is that you'll end up in a situation where the government becomes too dependent on this new cheap pool of labour and thus even more private-sector jobs are threatened - why pay when you get 'em for 200 euro a week?

Merch

ixoy wrote: »

Nonetheless there's no harm in the government listening to the proposals and seeing if the suggestions lead to a decent solution that's fair for both union and non-union workers.

That's great in theory but I think the argument against it is that you'll end up in a situation where the government becomes too dependent on this new cheap pool of labour and thus even more private-sector jobs are threatened - why pay when you get 'em for 200 euro a week?

I agree the govt shouldn't shouldn't just make decisions without including proposals but ultimately they have to make a decision that will be fair and sensible for all as much as possible in the long term and in the short term

Also in theory the idea of working for SW sounds ok, but it cant undermine exisiting jobs/business or the govt would be taking on a burden without gathering taxes, I dont mean a full week, something equal to minimum pay so equal to 3 days of 8 hours supporting services where the govt has already made cuts, perhaps as assistants in govt areas where planned OT cuts.
But if essential services are reduced because of staff shortage, then why not bring in people on SW with the skills to fill that gap or train them to support the front line of those positions.
The public sector will never support staff they see as undermining their OT but would probably complain that they are getting SW to do nothing also

In reality I cant see it working, idealism and realism dont seem to be good bedfellows

SerialComplaint

Merch wrote: »

When you're on 100% pay cut a 10% cut looks very attractive.

I can understand this view, but the problem arises when policy is set by what looks attractive to one group, whether that is the largest or smallest or most vocal group or not, rather than just doing the right thing.

Merch wrote: »

Also in theory the idea of working for SW sounds ok, but it cant undermine exisiting jobs/business or the govt would be taking on a burden without gathering taxes, I dont mean a full week, something equal to minimum pay so equal to 3 days of 8 hours supporting services where the govt has already made cuts, perhaps as assistants in govt areas where planned OT cuts.
But if essential services are reduced because of staff shortage, then why not bring in people on SW with the skills to fill that gap or train them to support the front line of those positions.
The public sector will never support staff they see as undermining their OT but would probably complain that they are getting SW to do nothing also

In reality I cant see it working, idealism and realism dont seem to be good bedfellows

It's not a question of undermining of OT, it is a question of exploitation. If the service needs to be provided, the Govt should be paying the relevant staff a fair wage for the work in question, not taking advantage of the recession to get cheap labour.

Barname

amacachi wrote: »

I've no problem if the Guards go on strike, once they don't announce it, just to see who notices other than people who need a passport application form stamped.

:pac::D:D:pac::pac:

brilliant

goldie fish

If everyone was taking an equal share of these cuts, it wouldnt be so bad, but everyone isn't. The pension related levy hits those on lower wage more than those on a higher wage. How is that fair?