Workers Walk Today

Bits_n_Bobs

Any idea how many of the workers are out strolling around our cities today on their day of protest?

Was listening to Pat Kenny at about 10.15 this morning and he interviewed two teachers who were working today, but were on a 'break' so they decided to go join in the walk. How can a teacher take a break at 10.15 on a Friday morning?

Didn't listen long to it as some union person annoyed the pants off me nearly as much as mini-lenihan, but of the walking workers interviewed none of them seemed to be from the private sector?

Wheety

The march doesn't start until 2:30.

ronkmonster

Are they working until lunchtime and just not going back?

I've not been following news lately

Bandit12

2.30 start. Be there or be square

jimmmy

The statistics shown that public sector workers, for some strange reason, take three times more "sickies" on Mondays than on Fridays. I wonder how many "sickies" will be taken this afternoon ?

LoLth

jimmmy wrote: »

The statistics shown that public sector workers, for some strange reason, take three times more "sickies" on Mondays than on Fridays. I wonder how many "sickies" will be taken this afternoon ?

which statistics? do these also apply to the private sector also? linky?

but good point. I wonder how many protesters, whether its a nama march or ictu march or anti war march etc, ring in sick instead of saying " I was out marching" . would seem to put a dent in their devotion to the cause if they feel the need to lie to their employer.

Wheety

The Public Sector workers have to take this afternoon off as annual leave.

If the strike goes ahead on the 24th, they won't get paid.

Bits_n_Bobs

Wheety wrote: »

The Public Sector workers have to take this afternoon off as annual leave.

Hadn't realised that it was compulsory

jimmmy

LoLth wrote: »

which statistics? do these also apply to the private sector also? linky?

Thanks to the poster who made post no. 27 on the thread "Average sick in the Irish Civil Service is comparable to other countries " ( page three of Politics, Irish economy ).



So its not work related stress thats causing it.

N. B. I am just acknowledging where the graph came from and all the debate about public sector sickies. The statistics on sickies in the private sector show far fewer sickies, but its unclear if as high a proportion occur on a Monday...it would be interesting to see that too.

LoLth

interesting graph.

Just two comments:

1. that is sick leave commencing on a monday, not necessarily sickies pulled on a monday and the difference can be quite important when viewing the apparent discrepency with the rest of the week. If you catch a flu on saturday or sunday and feel like crap you ring in to work on the monday (if you are still ill) and take a sick day so a sickness caught on a saturday , sunday or monday that last longer than a day will have sick leave commence on teh monday. this could be significant enough to skew the results. Though yes, in both sectors I would imagine that single day "sickies" are prevelant on a monday.

2. Most people who feel ill on a Friday will do to work and push through it knowing that they have the weekend to recover. also there is the natural elation of the weekend (the friday feeling) that can reduce the feeling of illness.

as I said before, its an interesting question and I'd love to know how many half day sickies are called.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

The statistics on sickies in the private sector show far fewer sickies, but its unclear if as high a proportion occur on a Monday...it would be interesting to see that too.

More innunedo masquerading as facts. Why am I not surprised?

A 'sicky' is an instance of uncertified sick leave taken for dishonest reasons.

The statistics you're quoting are, for the most part, not for 'sickies' but for 'certified sick leave'. The person has been certified as unavailable for work, usually by a private sector, self-employed, doctor (the kind of person you usually admire).

The number of 'sickies' is an unknown fraction of the uncertified sick leave (10% of all sick leave), a reasonable portion of which, in fairness would have been taken for genuine reasons of minor illness.

It's very unlikely that uncertified sick leave would be granted for a half-day on a Friday afternoon and quite implausible that anyone would get a cert for that.

hawker

Great to see some private sector workers joining in on the march today. A united stance against these imcompetent fools running our country.

Shea O'Meara

Yes. It shows not everybody is falling for the 'them and us' (public/private) smoke screen instigated by the government and their followers.

Wishbone Ash

Wheety wrote: »

The Public Sector workers have to take this afternoon off as annual leave.

If the strike goes ahead on the 24th, they won't get paid.

Many of those who were marching today are Public Sector shift workers (e.g. nurses, Gardai, fire fighters, paramedics etc.) and are either on a day off or will be working tonight when most of the country will be tucked up in bed.

I don't understand the fuss and confusion about whether they are paid or not on the 24th (assuming they are rostered to work). No-one gets paid by an employer while on strike. It's a non-issue.

jimmmy wrote: »

The statistics shown that public sector workers, for some strange reason, take three times more "sickies" on Mondays than on Fridays

LoLth wrote: »

2. Most people who feel ill on a Friday will do to work and push through it knowing that they have the weekend to recover. also there is the natural elation of the weekend (the friday feeling) that can reduce the feeling of illness

The reason why more sick days are taken on a Monday compared to Friday is very simple. If those who work a Monday to Friday shift, go sick on Friday, they are required to have a medical certificate for the time they are absent until resumption of duty. Therefore, a person who intends to resume work on Monday will be required to have a Medical Certificate for Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

On the other hand, if taking a Monday off sick can be deemed to be an uncertified sick day (if applicable) or will require only a one day's Certificate to cover it (presuming, of course that the employee intends to return on the Tuesday).

Amhran Nua

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Yes. It shows not everybody is falling for the 'them and us' (public/private) smoke screen instigated by the government and their followers.

We're in hock up to our eyeballs and sinking fast. Taxation cannot in any way cover the shortfall, so that just leaves cuts. I've no sympathy for the government while they scramble to fix the mess they caused, but to deny the mess exists is not a rational perspective.

wicklowmale

The 'Them and us' attitude has been created by the public sector themselves, they want more money whenever the economy is doing well (which is a realistic), but when things are getting tighter and tighter they will not take cuts or expects redundancy.

The private sector, even those in unions, understand that when things get tough to expect (but not like) cuts etc.

The public sector said there counterparts in the private sector came out in support, probably due to the fact that their family member works for them.

Realisticly the economy is crashing, whether caused by the banks, government etc is not the issue at present, the country is not making enough money to keep everything going at the speed it has been going for the last decade or two.

There needs to be change in the way things are run, period.

Social welfare needs to change, you're better off on benefit than working, i was off work sick for 8 months, earning more instead of working full time. This is wrong! Benefits are mainly for the short term not to give you a better standard of living.

Public Sector payroll bill for the yr is way too much for the number of ppl employed.

Health Service, although has fantastic ppl working in the frontline staff is run by burecrats and needs to be reformed.

If ppl can not understand this then they need to wake up, it is a opinion held by IBEC, economists and business ppl everywhere.

I would never work for the public sector for the obvious reason, been told by fat cats (union leaders) what to do and what jobs u can and cant do.

bbam

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Therefore, a person who intends to resume work on Monday will be required to have a Medical Certificate for Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

I think you're wrong there... Medical certificates can only be issued for the time the employee is unavailable for work. If this only the Friday then so be it. There is no need to be certified on the Saturday & Sunday.

If the employee never works Saturday or Sunday what would the implication of them not having a medical certificate ?? NONE

wicklowmale

Anyone who works knows that you don't need a sick not for sat and sun if you don't work those days, obviously if you are and u sick you will need one.

I can't believe this is even been discussed, this is so basic.

Wishbone Ash

bbam wrote: »

I think you're wrong there... Medical certificates can only be issued for the time the employee is unavailable for work. If this only the Friday then so be it. There is no need to be certified on the Saturday & Sunday.

If the employee never works Saturday or Sunday what would the implication of them not having a medical certificate ?? NONE

I work in staff administration and part of my duties are dealing with any medical certs for our 600 staff. The basic rules are that any staff reporting sick are deemed to be out sick until they return. Those staff who work Mon to Fri are required to have a cert for 3 days if they go sick on Fri and return on Mon.

I somehow think that I would have had heard complaints about this over the past 22 years if I was seeking certs that weren't required (bearing in mind that the staff are 99% unionised).

wicklowmale

I don't know what type of company you work for but that has to be the greatest load of **** i ever heard.

So if i sick on friday, but return monday. Are you seriously saying i need a cert?

If you don't work Sat or Sun you not OUT.
How could you be out if you not meant to be in?

Come on if you going to comment on something keep it real or if it sounds daft, leave it out.

Wishbone Ash

wicklowmale wrote: »

I don't know what type of company you work for but that has to be the greatest load of **** i ever heard.

Well it happens to be the largest employer in the state!

So if i sick on friday, but return monday. Are you seriously saying i need a cert?

Yes. One can't go from an uncertified day sick to a day off. Perhaps it's different in other sectors.

Similarly, one can't go on annual leave following an uncertified sick day.

Come on if you going to comment on something keep it real or if it sounds daft, leave it out.

So you think my job and the protocols I have to follow aren't real?

dearg lady

There was a particular public sector job I had a few years ago where we sometimes had to et certified for Sat and Sun, even though our working week was Monday to Friday. Bit weird. Sat and Sun were always counted as sick days if you were sick over the weekend, making it appear like you'd taken more sick day than ya really had!

ghost_ie

wicklowmale wrote: »

Health Service, although has fantastic ppl working in the frontline staff is run by burecrats and needs to be reformed.

This is true, but we all know that when it comes to job cuts it will be the frontline staff on average pay who will be let go, not the burocrats on very high wages.

bbam

Wishbone Ash..
May I ask then if there was a scenario where I was certified only the Friday and returned on the Monday what would the implication be??

I've directly managed people on a range of working patterns and to be honest that isn't a common policy.

S.L.F

bbam wrote: »

Wishbone Ash..
May I ask then if there was a scenario where I was certified only the Friday and returned on the Monday what would the implication be??

Sick 3 days Friday, Saturday and Sunday

Public service staff are deemed to work a 7 day week that is why it seems their sick days are far more than the Private service.

boodlesdoodles

bbam wrote: »

Wishbone Ash..
May I ask then if there was a scenario where I was certified only the Friday and returned on the Monday what would the implication be??

I've directly managed people on a range of working patterns and to be honest that isn't a common policy.

So what you're saying is, you're only out sick on the Friday and you return to work on Monday, then the cert would only be needed for Friday. The scenario in public service is if you're out sick on a Fri and don't return until Tues, i.e. being out sick on Mon as well, then your sick days are Fri, Sat, Sun and Mon. That is why it seems public service take so many sick days, because their HR count Sat & Sun's as working days.

aftermn

Yes things need to change, but lets have equitable change.

current public sector wages were agreed during the boom times and are now ahead of the curve. These wage agreements were not the only spending agreements made at that time by government.

If there is to be equity, should not all agreements made during the boom times be subject to review?

Storage for the voting machines could be bought cheaper now. Office space for the abandoned de-centralisation, PPP's, consultants, advisors etc.

Yet the only unilateral downsizing being considered is in the public sector wage bill.

I will accept a 5% reduction if all other contratcs agreed at that time also see such reduction, otherwise, P1ss off.

Wishbone Ash

bbam wrote: »

Wishbone Ash..
May I ask then if there was a scenario where I was certified only the Friday and returned on the Monday what would the implication be??

I've directly managed people on a range of working patterns and to be honest that isn't a common policy.

It would depend on the grade. Officers and non-officers are treated differently.

If a non-officer certified Friday but not Sat and Sun, I would contact them and request a cert for Sat and Sun. If this cert doesn't appear after an agreed period. they will be docked 2 days pay so effectively it doesn't happen. All Mon to Fri staff will be aware of the requirement to submit a 3 day cert. It may happen to new staff who aren't tuned into the system but we would give them a few days to get it in.

If an officer grade submits a cert for Fri but not Sat and Sun there are several options.

1. Request the cert for the two outstanding days.
2. Get them to pay back two days.
3. Deduct 2 days from annual leave allocation.

Again, it's very rare for it to occur. 99% of staff will submit the cert for 3 days.

Hopefully now people will understand why the number of sick days on a Friday are much lower than on Monday.

S.L.F wrote: »

Public service staff are deemed to work a 7 day week that is why it seems their sick days are far more than the Private service.

Precisely.

Similarly a staff member who goes on two weeks annual leave following an uncertified sick day is deemed to be ill for 15 days (1+7+7) but the media would never let that get in the way of a good story about PS sick days.

jimmmy

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Hopefully now people will understand why the number of sick days on a Friday are much lower than on Monday.

Absolutely nothing to do with Monday Morning blues or hangover ? :rolleyes:

Wishbone Ash

Another thing to bear in mind is that many public sector workers such as Gardai, prison Officers, nurses, firefighters, paramedics etc. are injured in the line of duty. Absences caused by such injuries are included in the "ordinary" sick leave figures.

jimmmy wrote: »

Monday Morning blues or hangover

Unfortunately the staff who may have the above manage to submit a medical certificate signed and stamped by a (private sector self-employed) medical officer!

If someone with a good record submits an appropriate cert, there's very little that can be done about it.

jimmmy

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Another thing to bear in mind is that many public sector workers such as Gardai, prison Officers, nurses, firefighters, paramedics etc. are injured in the line of duty. Absences caused by such injuries are included in the "ordinary" sick leave figures.
.

And people in the private sector - farmers, fishermen, construction workers, van drivers, security workers, doormen etc never get hurt or injured in the course of work ?

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Unfortunately the staff who may have the above manage to submit a medical certificate signed and stamped by a (private sector self-employed) medical officer!

If someone with a good record submits an appropriate cert, there's very little that can be done about it.

As everyone knows, go to your doctor with a cough or headache or backache + look for a cert for a day or two, and most doctors will feel they have to give you a cert. Not that all sick days are certified. It does not explain why the rate of sick days claimed is far higher in the public service than the private sector, and why almost three times more sickies are taken on a Monday compared to a Friday.

Wishbone Ash

jimmmy wrote: »

And people in the private sector - farmers, fishermen, construction workers, van drivers, security workers, doormen etc never get hurt or injured in the course of work ?

Of course but there is a difference. The vast majority of farmers and fishermen are self employed and therefore, aren't included in the figures. Doormen tend to be unofficial or 'double jobbing' and unlikely to be included either. Injuries suffered by construction workers, van drivers etc. are generally physically in nature. There's a big difference between being assaulted by a member of the public, prisoner/patient than physical injuries suffered by manual workers.

jimmmy wrote:

As everyone knows, go to your doctor with a cough or headache or backache + look for a cert for a day or two, and most doctors will feel they have to give you a cert.

I agreeing with you here as I said above. Doctor need to play their part and stop accepting €60 to furnish false certs which are unlikely to be challenged.

jimmmy wrote:

It does not explain why the rate of sick days claimed is far higher in the public service than the private sector, and why almost three times more sickies are taken on a Monday compared to a Friday.

If you see from a few post earlier, it's assessed differently which make the figures look different.

I agree totally that it is higher though and causes a lot of anger to those of us who work in essential frontline services where the remaining staff have to try to provide the same service without replacement of those out sick.

It's also very frustrating for those of us in the PS who are very rarely sick. I've only missed a few days in 22 years and my last day of absence was in 2005.

LoLth

jimmmy wrote: »

Absolutely nothing to do with Monday Morning blues or hangover ? :rolleyes:

and are these things unique to either the public or the private sector? If not, I dont see how they can be used as a demonstration of corruption without a more specific breakdown that shows the number of "monday morning blues" or "hangover" instances. to say that one sector or the other takes more without such evidence is speculation. you *may* be right but without evidence , its just an opinion.

wicklowmale

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Well it happens to be the largest employer in the state!

The Public Sector! obviously

jimmmy

LoLth wrote: »

and are these things unique to either the public or the private sector?

Of course not, because you are talking about human beings and sectors numbering 350,000 and 1,800,000..... but that is not the point. I do not really care about how many days sickies the private sector takes, as my taxes are not paying for them. I can choose to support whatever firm or business I want to, and the market can decide if it stays in business. By contrast the statistics show that far more sick days are taken in the public sector. Also almost three times more sickies are taken on a Monday compared to a Friday....so methinks that is something of public interest as the public is paying for it.

peter_de_tool

The Irish people appear to be too stupid or cowardly or indifferent to stop it. . .

We heard the usual feminist whine when these figures came out that they were explained by the fact that working mothers had to take off time to mind sick children. Well, firstly, that is not sick leave, and secondly, absenteeism is highest amongst women over 55, who take 17 days sick leave a year -- men of that age take one day -- and who are well past the child-minding age. And what is not clear from the report is the absenteeism levels amongst female clerical officers, in which category the two main malingering cultures combine.

S.L.F

jimmmy wrote: »

By contrast the statistics show that far more sick days are taken in the public sector. Also almost three times more sickies are taken on a Monday compared to a Friday....so methinks that is something of public interest as the public is paying for it.

The problem with satistics is you can get them to say whatever you want them to say all you have to do is when presenting the results to leave out the things you don't want mentioned eg the public service works on a 7 day week then suddenly you straight away have an extra 3 days sick leave if someone is sick on a Mon or a Fri.

Does the info say anything about whether or not maternity leave is classified as sick leave?

From this http://www.jeremymiles.co.uk/learningstats/

"There's this vague idea - which has been going around for the past few centuries - that statistics is quite difficult. But in reality the maths is often the least of your problems: the tricky bit comes way before the number crunching, when you are deciding what to measure, how to measure it, and what those measurements mean."

jimmmy

S.L.F wrote: »

The problem with satistics is you can get them to say whatever you want them to say all you have to do is when presenting the results to leave out the things you don't want mentioned eg the public service works on a 7 day week then suddenly you straight away have an extra 3 days sick leave if someone is sick on a Mon or a Fri.

I understand the statistics showing public sector sickies are treble that on a Monday compared to a Friday just show the 5 working days a week, because the statistics were just taken from those public servants working the normal Monday-Friday 5 day week. People who only worked part time or who worked weekends were deliberately left out , as they could have distorted the result.

S.L.F

jimmmy wrote: »

I understand the statistics showing public sector sickies are treble that on a Monday compared to a Friday just show the 5 working days a week, because the statistics were just taken from those public servants working the normal Monday-Friday 5 day week. People who only worked part time or who worked weekends were deliberately left out , as they could have distorted the result.

jimmmy in the PS a person might only work Mon to Fri every single week but when it comes to sickness on a Monday or a Friday they are expected to get a cert for Saturdays and Sundays as they are deemed to work a seven day week.

It probably seems crazy but that is the way it's done in the PS

TCP/IP_King

jimmmy wrote: »

...because the statistics were just taken from those public servants working the normal Monday-Friday 5 day week...

Its OK I found it

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

As everyone knows, go to your doctor with a cough or headache or backache + look for a cert for a day or two, and most doctors will feel they have to give you a cert.

If certs are being given out when they should not be, it's the fault of the private sector doctors who issue them.

jimmmy wrote: »

Not that all sick days are certified.

90% are certified.

jimmmy wrote: »

It does not explain why the rate of sick days claimed is far higher in the public service than the private sector, and why almost three times more sickies are taken on a Monday compared to a Friday.

Because people get too sick to be allowed work. Because they soldier on during the week hoping to recover from an illness over the weekend, then find they're still not well enought to return on the Monday.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Well it happens to be the largest employer in the state!

wicklowmale wrote: »

The Public Sector! obviously

The Health Service Executive is the largest employer in the state.

Wishbone Ash

jimmmy wrote: »

I do not really care about how many days sickies the private sector takes, as my taxes are not paying for them

The private sector are not the only ones paying income taxes!! My income tax is also used and a significat portion of the income tax gathered comes from the PS.

jimmmy wrote:

I can choose to support whatever firm or business I want to, and the market can decide if it stays in business.

Of course you can and my money is good too.

I don't understand your point about staying in business. Do you expect your local Garda Station or dole office to make a profit? Do you pick and choose which fire station you would like to respond to your call or choose which A & E you would like to utilise?

jimmmy wrote:

By contrast the statistics show that far more sick days are taken in the public sector

They are compilied differently.

jimmmy wrote:

Also almost three times more sickies are taken on a Monday compared to a Friday....so methinks that is something of public interest as the public is paying for it.

Your obsessed with this Monday thing!

The graph you provided earlier shows the percentage of days where sick leave commenced. Some people may not fele well on Friday but they struggle on because the are off duty for the next 2 days and hope to recover by Monday and avoid taking 3 certified sick days.

If however, they are not fit to resume on Monday they will submit a cert for the duration of the illness begining on the Monday even though they have been sick since Friday. The figures are naturally going to be higher for commencment of sick leave on a Monday.

Suppose then that a particular group of employees work a Friday to Tuesday cycle with each Wednesday and Thursday off. The figures then would naturally show a higher commencement of sick leave on a Friday.

I would be interested in seeing a graph of shift workers who are rostered over 7 days/52 weeks (day and night). It would show no difference from one day to the next as a Cert would be required for any of the days off exceeding the first day regardless of which day the sick leave commences.

bbam

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

as a Cert would be required for any of the days off

No... I've worked for a major private company 5K+ employees and managed employees on many shift patterns, we were not interested in certs for days not rostered.

An employee could have a single day cert for their last rostered day and that would be fine...

Please don't attempt to suggest that working conditions/security are similar in public sector and private service..

I am a manager in the private sector and my partner is a department manager in the public sector, I have a decent understanding of how both sides work.

The major difference is that while 10% of the employees in my organisation have been made redundant, with the remainder taking pay cuts..... Well we know what the public sector have sacrificed..., their Friday afternoon's work which we had to borrow the money to fund !

Anyway, I think the whole certified/uincertified is besides the point..
A significant portion of public sector wages are out of control and I don't want "efficiencies", I want to see wages reduced...

Reverse benchmarking is the order of the day, serve it hot or cold, just bloody serve it in December..

TCP/IP_King

peter_de_tool wrote: »

We heard the usual feminist whine ...

The usual IBEC whine.
The fundamental truth here is that society is built on people and not on some principle from 19th century "organising of work" philosophy.
The sad reality is that, ignoring the corporate facade of "slogging" long hours and get back to the basics of child no 1 is sick, it's the mother that invariably ends up picking up the reality.
The "dad" is there slogging it with the rest of the corporate whores.
Been there, done that, and regretfully realised too late the fallicy of it all.

uncle_sam_ie

bbam wrote: »

Anyway, I think the whole certified/uincertified is besides the point..
A significant portion of public sector wages are out of control and I don't want "efficiencies", I want to see wages reduced...

Reverse benchmarking is the order of the day, serve it hot or cold, just bloody serve it in December..

So, tax anyone who earners over 50,000. The out of control portion would be hit then. Why should hard working nurse's, that earn less and end up taking care of people like you when your in desperate need of their help, carry the can for what the private sector has done to this economy. There seems to be plenty of billions to help bail them out.

thebman

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

So, tax anyone who earners over 50,000. The out of control portion would be hit then. Why should hard working nurse's, that earn less and end up taking care of people like you when your in desperate need of their help, carry the can for what the private sector has done to this economy. There seems to be plenty of billions to help bail them out.

-20 billion + whatever the government is out by in its calculations

And if the public sector isn't part of the economy axe it because its sucking money out of the economy. If it is part of the economy, it played its part to get us where we are today.

People arguing both ways in this thread. I'll be banned if I properly respond to the statement that the private sector did everything to the economy.

Makes me wonder do you even know what the private sector is :rolleyes:

uncle_sam_ie

thebman wrote: »

Makes me wonder do you even know what the private sector is :rolleyes:

Ya it's the sector were the banks and developers together got us into this mess . Sorry but, a nurse that works a 12 hour shift saving someones life like yours then goes out and spends his or her wage back into the economy did not get us into this mess.

Head The Wall

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

So, tax anyone who earners over 50,000. The out of control portion would be hit then. Why should hard working nurse's, that earn less and end up taking care of people like you when your in desperate need of their help, carry the can for what the private sector has done to this economy. There seems to be plenty of billions to help bail them out.

Maybe the reason the PS staff are saying they can't afford any more paycuts is because they got carried away and got large mortages, new cars etc and fuelled the boom themselves. The PS claim they get higher wages because they have are more educated etc but yet they are ignorant to the fact that everyone that borrowed and lived on credit is responsible. Builders only charged what the market would pay. Get real people

irish_bob

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

So, tax anyone who earners over 50,000. The out of control portion would be hit then. Why should hard working nurse's, that earn less and end up taking care of people like you when your in desperate need of their help, carry the can for what the private sector has done to this economy. There seems to be plenty of billions to help bail them out.

ah , another drag up the sacred cows that are the nurses post , the average nurse earns 50 k per year btw , they earn more than many business which take in over 100k per year , the nurse has no costs , the business cost are usually half what they take in , right now , they are probably far more

enough of the pull at the heartstrings tactics from the so called FRONTLINE union

thebman

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Ya it's the sector were the banks and developers together got us into this mess .

Thats a crap and inaccurate definition, please try again. I'll even let you cheat and use Google.

Sorry but, a nurse that works a 12 hour shift saving someones life like yours then goes out

What has that got to do with anything. Thats their job, if they don't do their job then there is an issue. Shouldn't have signed the contract if the person wasn't happy with what was in it.

and spends his or her wage back into the economy did not get us into this mess.

lol so they somehow magically contributed to the economy but didn't contribute to where the economy ended up? Fantasy land, I'm sure some didn't but there are many people with mortgages that were only too happy to support those evil developers in the private sector :rolleyes: