Spare a thought for Barry

ei.sdraob

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

I recently tried to get a bank account address changed . Had written a letter oif complaint stating various problems I had with the bank. A guy rang and swore blind it would be all sorted. It wasn't -was forced to make two more calls for what should have been a simple thing. Im just showing one example of the inefficiencies in Private sector.

nothing stopping you from moving to another bank, i had **** experience with AIB manager and service for example while BOI manager on other hand calls me by first name whenever i visit them (no not for bad reasons) hence AIB lost out on customer

unfortunately we cant choose another public sector, and when the taxpayer asks for more value for money all you get is **** and strikes

FlashGordon1969

ei.sdraob wrote: »

nothing stopping you from moving to another bank, i had **** experience with AIB manager and service for example while BOI manager on other hand calls me by first name whenever i visit them (no not for bad reasons) hence AIB lost out on customer

unfortunately we cant choose another public sector, and when the taxpayer asks for more value for money all you get is **** and strikes

Well speaking as a fxxxx striker I disagree! You cant have competition in all parts of Public sector but would be worth a go in some places. Reform agenda is a right wing agenda. Reform is always ongoing. Very funny to have Public sector lambasted when the scale of banking crisis dwarfs any incompetence in the public sector. Private sector is not one efficient beast-to say so is gross generalisation just as is saying all Public sector is inefficient is pure tripe.

Reminds me of Two legs bad four legs good from Animal farm.

Labour law has been thrown out of the window-you normally must get your workers to agree to pay cuts you cant impose them. Should public sector pay be cut? Yes. But there is little chance of getting a group of workers who have seen decades (even a century) of lab law thrown out to agree to do more for less. Fascism now springs to my mind when I listen to the propaganda thrown out by the Indo covering its paw prints all over this crisis.
Anyway this whole debate is repetitive and boring.

ei.sdraob

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

Very funny to have Public sector lambasted when the scale of banking crisis dwarfs any incompetence in the public sector..

the banking crisis cost 25 billion in bailouts so far (and they shouldnt have got a cent i say)
the public sector is close to above but recurring yearly, thats a big difference

and whats worse (like welfare) this spending has grown way out of control in order to mainly buy votes from gullible people, and that it did


and no its nothing to do with right wing politics, i could care less for left (handing money over to bankers is a perversion of left wing socialism) or right wing arguments, it all has to do with facing reality that we all were on the wrong track and doing something about it

we simply cant continue to borrow to pay for all of this, its gone to a stage now where the NTMA borrowed 5 billion last year at highish rate to pay back an earlier lower rate loan, thats just plain madness

Head The Wall

theg81der wrote: »

+1 to the above, even thou it was interesting reading.

I chose to be prudent - stuck with my small house and paid off my morgage no way I`m paying for other people like the ones who were scoffing at me for not driving a fancy car or buying a bigger house a few years ago they can sing for it.

How is it that post disappeared?

Same here, back from the states a few years and knew prices here were nuts so refrained. You didn't have to be one of the few economists that knew what was going on to not take the carrot from the bank

He seems to have deleted all his posts or it was done for him. Had that post open in a window last night and went to bed. Noticed it gone this morning in a seperate window

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

Most dont have that threat either. I know a few public sector workers let go who were on contracts.

They were contract workers, it's all in the title. The problem is the Full time PS that are crap can't be fired and get kept on where possibly the contract worker would be a better option for the govt but their hands are tied. Contract workers and recent graduates are the ones getting shafted here

btard wrote: »

You and other in this thread seem to have no idea how the public sector works, what it does for you, or how your life would change if we are forced to withdraw our labour. Waiting a few weeks for your dole money and longer waiting lists will be the least of your problems. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

I'd rather have inconvenience now than to be paying ridiculous taxes for the rest of my life just so you lot can get your way. I'm sure every days wages lost on strike won't be an inconvenience on your members either. Bring it on, and lets get this sorted out

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

You cant have competition in all parts of Public sector but would be worth a go in some places. Reform agenda is a right wing agenda. Reform is always ongoing.

Labour law has been thrown out of the window-you normally must get your workers to agree to pay cuts you cant impose them. Should public sector pay be cut? Yes. But there is little chance of getting a group of workers who have seen decades (even a century) of lab law thrown out to agree to do more for less. Fascism now springs to my mind when I listen to the propaganda thrown out by the Indo covering its paw prints all over this crisis.
Anyway this whole debate is repetitive and boring.

We are not asking for competition in the PS we are asking for effiency


This is from Citizens Informatian Website. All seems relevant to the situation in Govt at the moment. If you dont like the changes to your terms of employment do something about it

Reduction of working hours or pay

If your employer asks you to work fewer hours or take a pay cut, this is a change to your contract of employment. Any change to your contract of employment must be agreed by both you and your employer. When deciding whether or not to agree to working reduced hours or to a reduction in pay, there are a number of issues to be considered:

* Reduced pay – what are the implications of this – for example, money and tax and paying the rent or mortgage
* Scheduling of working hours – it may suit you and your family to reduce your hours, for example working a day less per week or 2 hours less each day.
* Downturn in business – what choice do you have. If you don’t accept a reduction in your working hours or pay, your employer may decide to make you redundant.

You should ask your employer to give you written details of this proposed change to your contract of employment including a review date. You should respond to this in writing and if you are proposing to accept the change, you should stress that your acceptance is temporary. At the review date the change to your contract can be reconsidered and you could ask to return to the original terms and conditions of your contract.

If you do not agree to reduced working hours or pay

If your employer proposes to reduce your working hours or pay, this is a change to your terms and conditions of employment. You may agree to the reduction for reasons as described above. If you do not agree and say you wish to continue working as before your employer may decide to make you redundant. If you are dismissed in this way, you may qualify to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. Unless your employer can prove there was a genuine redundancy situation and that fair procedures were followed, this dismissal may be found to be unfair. If your employer insists on reducing your working hours or pay you may also consider that you have no choice but to resign and claim constructive dismissal because your employer has breached the terms of your contract. Before you do this, you should always seek detailed legal advice as proving constructive dismissal can often be difficult.

Count Dooku

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

Well speaking as a fxxxx striker I disagree! You cant have competition in all parts of Public sector but would be worth a go in some places. Reform agenda is a right wing agenda.

And paying to public workers as much they want is left wing agenda
Did you ever think why most of left-wingers are working in public sector?

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

Reform is always ongoing. Very funny to have Public sector lambasted when the scale of banking crisis dwarfs any incompetence in the public sector. Private sector is not one efficient beast-to say so is gross generalisation just as is saying all Public sector is inefficient is pure tripe.

Banks have more common with public sector then you think. Both have inefficient unionized staff and incompetent management. Difference is only in ownership, but shareholders have even less influence on top management of banks then even voters on politicians

FlashGordon1969

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the banking crisis cost 25 billion in bailouts so far (and they shouldnt have got a cent i say)
the public sector is close to above but recurring yearly, thats a big difference

and whats worse (like welfare) this spending has grown way out of control in order to mainly buy votes from gullible people, and that it did


and no its nothing to do with right wing politics, i could care less for left (handing money over to bankers is a perversion of left wing socialism) or right wing arguments, it all has to do with facing reality that we all were on the wrong track and doing something about it

we simply cant continue to borrow to pay for all of this, its gone to a stage now where the NTMA borrowed 5 billion last year at highish rate to pay back an earlier lower rate loan, thats just plain madness

You cant be serious comparing salaries paid yearly for work to NAMA. You have to pay public servants-you do know this? The amount is up for debate. Anyway as stated this is a boring debate same old same old. Im off-for good. Enjoy-I think?

FlashGordon1969

Count Dooku wrote: »

And paying to public workers as much they want is left wing agenda
Did you ever think why most of left-wingers are working in public sector?




Banks have more common with public sector then you think. Both have inefficient unionized staff and incompetent management. Difference is only in ownership, but shareholders have even less influence on top management of banks then even voters on politicians

Any facts to back up this sweeping generalisation.Most public servants I know are right of centre but I dont leap and jump to saying they are all right of centre! Good night.

btard

Head The Wall wrote: »

I'd rather have inconvenience now than to be paying ridiculous taxes for the rest of my life just so you lot can get your way. I'm sure every days wages lost on strike won't be an inconvenience on your members either. Bring it on, and lets get this sorted out

It's not about you paying ridiculous taxes and us getting our way. The govenment was offered the savings they needed this year without pay cuts and billions in savings over the next few years. They were about to sign off on it untill their paymasters in the business lobby got on to the TD's and threatened to pull their payoffs funding if it wasn't stopped. Their propaganda ragsheets ranted about 12 day holiday bull**** in order to whip up the mob and justify it. This is about breaking the unions and turning us all in to low paid wage slaves. It affects you and every other private sector worker just as much. Please wake up and don't let them use you. Fighting among ourselves is a no win scenario. If we don't unite we make it easy for them. If they break our unions it's over for every worker in the state. The parasites who live off the sweat of our brows will make us their bitches and we are all finished.

As for losing pay by striking. Phase 3 is called the nuclear option because it's likely to be a pyrrhic victory where we all lose. If phase 2 is worked effectively this will never reach phase 3. Strike action will be in selected areas with only key staff being asked to withdraw labour. It may only be one or two in a section, but enough to close that section down. They will be compensated fully by the rest of us from our union dues, hence no loss of earnings. Years of being hogtied in partnership deals have made us weak and slow to respond effectively up to now. Some of us are learning fast.

Count Dooku

btard wrote: »

Phase 3 is called the nuclear option because it's likely to be a pyrrhic victory where we all lose.

The only goal what public servants can achieve is to scare MNC’s which provide 50% of GDP and 40% of tax take, but employ only 100,000 people. The rest of private sector will not be affected and will manage to recover quickly. But for Ireland it will mean two choices – IMF or default. Both are equally bad for public sector and not so bad for private sector. Great advantage of nuclear option for private sector is that it is the quickest way to sort problems with overpaid public sector and remove uncertainty about future.
Go ahead and very soon we will discuss what is reasonable level of cuts - 75% or 80%

FlashGordon1969

Count Dooku wrote: »

The only goal what public servants can achieve is to scare MNC’s which provide 50% of GDP and 40% of tax take, but employ only 100,000 people. The rest of private sector will not be affected and will manage to recover quickly. But for Ireland it will mean two choices – IMF or default. Both are equally bad for public sector and not so bad for private sector. Great advantage of nuclear option for private sector is that it is the quickest way to sort problems with overpaid public sector and remove uncertainty about future.
Go ahead and very soon we will discuss what is reasonable level of cuts - 75% or 80%

Do you think you might be accused of over playing your hand here-75%? Really? Come off it-come back to terra firma. I dont think your comments are in anyway helpful and are simply there to wind people up.

ei.sdraob

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

You cant be serious comparing salaries paid yearly for work to NAMA. You have to pay public servants-you do know this? The amount is up for debate. Anyway as stated this is a boring debate same old same old. Im off-for good. Enjoy-I think?

im not the one who is dragging banks into this

just pointing out that the bankers shouldnt have been given a cent

but neither should have so much money pumped into the public sector +welfare either (in order to buy votes), illustrated here > http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055798021

P. Breathnach

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

Do you think you might be accused of over playing your hand here-75%? Really? Come off it-come back to terra firma. I dont think your comments are in anyway helpful and are simply there to wind people up.

I agree that Count Dooku seems to wind things up a bit. But he is far from alone, and btard's contributions hardly rate as emollient.

All the public servants I know are resigned to the financial losses they are suffering. Hardly enthusiastic, but let's not expect too much. Most will get by okay, but some I know will certainly feel a sore pinch. I wouldn't begrudge them a right to yelp with the pain; it's therapeutic.

It is not in the interests of public service that some among their number are saying unreasonable things. It is unfair to take the foolish words of those people and ascribe them to all public servants.

FlashGordon1969

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I agree that Count Dooku seems to wind things up a bit. But he is far from alone, and btard's contributions hardly rate as emollient.

All the public servants I know are resigned to the financial losses they are suffering. Hardly enthusiastic, but let's not expect too much. Most will get by okay, but some I know will certainly feel a sore pinch. I wouldn't begrudge them a right to yelp with the pain; it's therapeutic.

It is not in the interests of public service that some among their number are saying unreasonable things. It is unfair to take the foolish words of those people and ascribe them to all public servants.

What do you mean by the last line. Cant the count be accused of trolling?

Riskymove

Count Dooku wrote: »

But for Ireland it will mean two choices – IMF or default. Both are equally bad for public sector and not so bad for private sector. Great advantage of nuclear option for private sector is that it is the quickest way to sort problems with overpaid public sector and remove uncertainty about future.
Go ahead and very soon we will discuss what is reasonable level of cuts - 75% or 80%

the IMF would not be so bad for the private sector?

unbelivable!!! talk about rose-tinted glasses

P. Breathnach

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

What do you mean by the last line. Cant the count be accused of trolling?

We are not supposed to accuse anybody of trolling here. If you think somebody is trolling, you should report it to the moderators who will take whatever action they consider appropriate.

I'll take the risk of drifting a little into moderator territory here, and hope that I will be forgiven by them: I don't actually think Count Dooku is trolling. He takes an extreme position with which I happen to disagree (he might not consider his position extreme).

I don't see what confuses you about the last line of what I wrote. If one public servant says unreasonable or foolish things, it is unfair to suggest that all public servants take the same position. [Come to think of it, if one public servant says something that is particularly wise or insightful, it does not mean that every public servant is equally wise or insightful.]

Count Dooku

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

Do you think you might be accused of over playing your hand here-75%? Really? Come off it-come back to terra firma. I dont think your comments are in anyway helpful and are simply there to wind people up.

It is very simple maths for anybody, who is not working in public sector

If we will make average PS pay as function of GDP per capita, you will see that Irish public sector was overpaid by about 15% in 2007. Because Ireland has a biggest difference in EU between GDP and GNP, it means that even with 15% overpay has been removed, Ireland still has about 25-30% overpay to EU average GNP per capita. Then, we know that MNC’s are providing about 75% of GDP and if they will leave, Ireland will lose about 15-20 Bn of tax take.
Question – how much we have to cut PS payroll bill in order to get rid of deficit, when MNC’s will leave Ireland?

Count Dooku

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

What do you mean by the last line. Cant the count be accused of trolling?

Trolling means empty statements without facts
I have facts, you don’t
You simply not able to find arguments that I am wrong

Ireland has a high level of FDI as a percentage of GDP. 75%, (GNP c.85%) compared to OECD average of 25%, Italy 20%, Spain 35%

http://www.ija.ie/uploads/downloads/japan_ireland/Irish_Economic_Brief_2009-01.pdf

I repeat my question – how much we will have to cut PS payroll bill, when MNC’s will leave Ireland?

Count Dooku

Riskymove wrote: »

the IMF would not be so bad for the private sector?

unbelivable!!! talk about rose-tinted glasses

IMF is interested to see private sector properly working, otherwise IMF never will get loans paid back. This is why IMF always concentrates on cuts within public sector in order to save private sector from even higher taxes, which government could impose in order to protect public service pay

Riskymove

Count Dooku wrote: »

IMF is interested to see private sector properly working, otherwise IMF never will get loans paid back.

still rose-tinted view

The IMF cuts public expenditure because it wants the private sector's tax money to be paid to them first; that's how it gets paid not by generating new employment etc

but its not just public pay it usually cuts, it would severely restrict spending on public services, infrastructure etc

This is why IMF always concentrates on cuts within public sector in order to save private sector from even higher taxes, which government could impose in order to protect public service pay

it may not see income taxes raised (but in our case that may bedifferent given the rates) but certainly might see other things like a property tax brought in etc

Count Dooku

Riskymove wrote: »

still rose-tinted view

The IMF cuts public expenditure because it wants the private sector's tax money to be paid to them first; that's how it gets paid not by generating new employment etc

but its not just public pay it usually cuts, it would severely restrict spending on public services, infrastructure etc

If it something will really generate employment, I don’t think that IMF will oppose to it, because they greedy people and want to see their loans paid as quick as possible. But they will object massaging of unemployment figures by redistribution taxpayers money to inefficient businesses in order to hide real unemployment

Riskymove wrote: »

it may not see income taxes raised (but in our case that may bedifferent given the rates) but certainly might see other things like a property tax brought in etc

There is no chance to escape property tax even without IMF.
Question only is it will be called “water charges” in order to save landlords from paying taxes on their properties to let or it will be real property tax like everywhere else

BeardyFunzo

Count Dooku wrote: »

I repeat my question – how much we will have to cut PS payroll bill, when MNC’s will leave Ireland?

Well you can't cut the pay of someone on 30K a year by 75% as that is below minimum wage and the dole. I know this is hard for some people here to get their heads around but you can't expect people to work for nothing no matter how much you bash them.

ei.sdraob

BeardyFunzo wrote: »

Well you can't cut the pay of someone on 30K a year by 75% as that is below minimum wage and the dole. I know this is hard for some people here to get their heads around but you can't expect people to work for nothing no matter how much you bash them.

if all the companies are gone then there wont be welfare either mr


all the public sector have to do is cut back to 2004 levels

its as simple as that, the country wasnt that badly of 6 or so years ago
same applies to welfare and other expenditure which went out of control


stop it with the 75% cut crap or "theres no need for PS" nonsense




income has fallen to 2003-2004 level


so you other cut the expenditure to same level or continue borrowing at high interest until you are forced to cut, as is happening in greece

BeardyFunzo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if all the companies are gone then there wont be welfare either mr

We're all pretty boned in that scenario so...

all the public sector have to do is cut back to 2004 levels

I'd be happy enough with that if i could get a pint for 3.50euro in my local

stop it with the 75% cut crap or "theres no need for PS" nonsense

good point!

ei.sdraob

BeardyFunzo wrote: »

I'd be happy enough with that if i could get a pint for 4euro in my local

many many business have cut down costs as much as possible, cost of living has fallen across the board as result, the only things that have risen or barely budged are tied to the state (health and electricity)


but do remember that some costs simply can not be cut since we have a minimum wage deals putting a floor under any further falls

look how much the price of alcohol went down by in supermarkets (where you just need employ people to stock a shelf, and customers serve themselves) as compared to a pub (where you need people to serve and deal customers)

also compare to price of drinks in UK where the min wage and welfare is much lower than here

mind you there are other costs such as rent (why is that still so high with so many empty commercial properties) or electricity (good old esb)


anyways thats a different subject altogether

BeardyFunzo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

anyways thats a different subject altogether

True. Alot of what you talk about above could have been resolved with an old fashioned currency devaluation. Probably would have killed off cross boarder shopping too.

but then again, I'm no economist so i might not know the full ramifications of the above.

ei.sdraob

BeardyFunzo wrote: »

True. Alot of what you talk about above could have been resolved with an old fashioned currency devaluation. Probably would have killed off cross boarder shopping too.

but then again, I'm no economist so i might not know the full ramifications of the above.

that was discussed in another thread before

devaluation is similar to a straight across the board tax, since it makes everyone poorer by an equal amount

and is not "fair" since someone on 100K might be 30% poorer but it wont affect them as much as someone on 10K who now finds they are 30% worse off

thats the reason why we have a progressive taxation system


actually if you look at the major currencies versus the euro you would see that thanks to the Greeks the euro is loosing value, were all being made poorer now, so if the unions continue to push and manage to get their way, they might end-up destabilizing the euro and making everyone including themselves "worse off"

Count Dooku

ei.sdraob wrote: »

stop it with the 75% cut crap or "theres no need for PS" nonsense

BTW, “75% cuts” was only an attempt to explain CPSU extremists that we are all in the same boat and any attempts to misbalance situation more will hit public sector as well
Am I banned?
:rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

Count Dooku wrote: »

BTW, “75% cuts” was only an attempt to explain CPSU extremists that we are all in the same boat and any attempts to misbalance situation more will hit public sector as well
Am I banned?
:rolleyes:

that wasnt aimed at you but our "nuclear option" friend whose gone on a tangent and other people who reply to "the expenditure must be cut" posts by making it out to be as if the whole public sector is proposed as being done away with altogether, which of course is not the case

you are correct in saying that public sector would suffer the most if IMF (or whatever) come in, just look at Russia defaulting in 90s, resulting in teachers working for free in the hope that they might get paid and still have a job, or for that matter look at California where teachers are now getting paid in IOUs (mind you California is in top 10 economies in world while Ireland is in top 50, but both have same sized deficits)

FlashGordon1969

Why would all the MNC's leave Ireland-did I miss something? My apologies about trolling comment (count)it seems you had some substance to your point even if I think its far fetched.

soden12

Public Sector or not Barry (and his kind) is actually the lasting legacy of the Celtic Tiger.
On the developers side we have rotting hulks of unfinished buildings which stand testament to their dreams of making a killing.
On the customers side we have ordinary folk mortaged up to the hilt having succumbed to media fuelled pressure to get on the property ladder no matter what it took.
Of course we also have the amateur property magnates who bought multiple houses funded purely by the rental rates existant a few years ago.
On the financial side we have the once-proud banks - well sure what can I say about them...