Are the Trade unions run by Children?

whadabouchasir

I was watching the six one news last night and there was some guy from one of the public sector unions being interviewed on it.He was asked about pay cuts and if because of the national debt they were unavoidable.He then responded with one of the most ridiculous and selfish answers i've heard in a long time.

He basically said that a pay cut wouldn't work because it would take money out of the economy and that it would be better to leave pay rates the same so workers would have more money to stimulate the econmy.If he considers giving people more money to spend at the cost of the taxpayer is going to benefit the economy then surely I should get a few grand to buy a car.It's not like not taking a pay cut is going to lead to a shortage of money elsewhere right?Or that it could lead to tax increases,that's just nonsense.

He then likened this stance to Americas stimulus package.Duiring the whole interview he droned on and on about what workers want,and about haw pay cuts are unacceptable.I wonder did he even talk to any workers?I have a job and I wouldn't mind a 5% pay cut if it meant more job secuirity for me and more hours to work.

All my hungover head can see is a pattern of black lines... Paragraphs needed.

brianthebard

whadabouchasir wrote: »

If he considers giving people more money to spend at the cost of the taxpayer is going to benefit the economy then surely I should get a few grand to buy a car.

Sarcasm? Or have you really not heard about the govt scrappage scheme?

It's not like not taking a pay cut is going to lead to a shortage of money elsewhere right?Or that it could lead to tax increases,that's just nonsense.He then likened this stance to Americas stimulus package.Duiring the whole interview he droned on and on about what workers want,and about haw pay cuts are unacceptable.I wonder did he even talk to any workers?I have a job and I wouldn't mind a 5% pay cut if it meant more job secuirity for me and more hours to work.

Everyone of every political persuasion knows that taking money from workers during a recession will only lengthen its effects. Your post is somewhat ridiculous.

Pherekydes

Yeah. Do children learn about paragraphs these days?

bazmaiden

there's alot of anger out there!!

It's about moving forward in the current climate

thats all the cliches I can think of right now

Degsy

I believe Charles Manson was a public sector worker..says it all really.

JuliusCaesar

whadabouchasir wrote: »

He basically said that a pay cut wouldn't work because it would take money out of the economy and that it would be better to leave pay rates the same so workers would have more money to stimulate the econmy.If he considers giving people more money to spend at the cost of the taxpayer is going to benefit the economy then surely I should get a few grand to buy a car.It's not like not taking a pay cut is going to lead to a shortage of money elsewhere right?Or that it could lead to tax increases,that's just nonsense..

OK, it is actually true.

1. If your gross pay is cut, your tax also reduces to reflect the lower salary, so the government gets less tax in.

2. When people hear that they might be taking a pay cut, or more than one pay cut, they start not spending so much money. This has two effects:
A. Less indirect tax (eg VAT) is taken by the govenment.
B. Because people are spending less, there is less money being paid for goods and services. So the people providing goods and services are taking less money in, and so their businesses are on the edge or worse.....which might lead to their workers getting pay cuts/working less hours (which is beginning to lead us back to points 1 and 2) or they become unemployed - and became a drain on the already reduced tax take.

Any more explanation necessary?

People keep their money for essentials (mortgage, bills, etc) and no longer spend freely. This leads to a downward spiral.

Mark200

brianthebard wrote: »

Everyone of every political persuasion knows that taking money from workers during a recession will only lengthen its effects. Your post is somewhat ridiculous.

The point is that the Government can not afford to keep giving the money that it is giving. Things like the scrappage scheme only work because they are temporary. If it always worked then it would be permanent.

1. If your gross pay is cut, your tax also reduces to reflect the lower salary, so the government gets less tax in.

The Government is the one paying the wages in the first place! That logic could only apply to employee of private companies.

whadabouchasir

brianthebard wrote: »

Sarcasm? Or have you really not heard about the govt scrappage scheme?.

This only applies to people who already own a car i.e not me.sorry it wasn't a great example.

brianthebard wrote: »

Everyone of every political persuasion knows that taking money from workers during a recession will only lengthen its effects. Your post is somewhat ridiculous.

Under normal circumstances yes.But with tax receipts down and a mounting national debt,pay cuts are both necessary and inevitable.If we don't reduce wages then we'll have to increase taxes to pay this debt and the longer we take to pay it the more it will cost us in intrest.So it would make more economic sense to reduce public sector wages by a small amount say 4%.

Also remember that we've had deflation and price wars going on between supermarkets lately too so wage reductions would not have as much of a negative effect.

brianthebard

Mark200 wrote: »

The point is that the Government can not afford to keep giving the money that it is giving. Things like the scrappage scheme only work because they are temporary. If it always worked then it would be permanent.

Eh, the op doesn't even have a point. And there comes a time when making further cuts to save money now only continues to hurt the economy in the medium-long term, and we have already reached or even surpassed that point.

whadabouchasir wrote: »

Under normal circumstances yes.But with tax receipts down and a mounting national debt,pay cuts are both necessary and inevitable.If we don't reduce wages then we'll have to increase taxes to pay this debt and the longer we take to pay it the more it will cost us in intrest.So it would make more economic sense to reduce public sector wages by a small amount say 4%.

Also remember that we've had deflation and price wars going on between supermarkets lately too so wage reductions would not have as much of a negative effect.

So what would that bring the total public sector cut to, 20%? 25%? I'm not sure. What I do know is that another cut will not be acceptable to the public sector workers, especially after being specifically targeted by the government in the previous budget. Towns like Sligo where a high proportion of workers are public sector are turning into ghost towns and as much shopping as possible is being done in the North, so the price wars is at best an illusion.

Mark200

brianthebard wrote: »

Eh, the op doesn't even have a point. And there comes a time when making further cuts to save money now only continues to hurt the economy in the medium-long term, and we have already reached or even surpassed that point.

And there comes a time when refusing to make cuts now to help the economy in the short term continues to hurt the economy in the medium-long term.

brianthebard

Mark200 wrote: »

And there comes a time when refusing to make cuts now to help the economy in the short term continues to hurt the economy in the medium-long term.

As I asked the op above, how much have the public sector wages been cut by now? You think they've refused cuts?

Mark200

brianthebard wrote: »

So what would that bring the total public sector cut to, 20%? 25%? I'm not sure. What I do know is that another cut will not be acceptable to the public sector workers, especially after being specifically targeted by the government in the previous budget.

So who should the Government 'target'? The public sector workers are the Government's employees! A huge portion of the Government's spending goes towards their wages - there's not much other areas that the Government CAN reduce spending.

If I was working for an employer that was billions of Euro in the read, you can be damn sure I wouldn't go crying about a 10 - 20% pay cut.

Mark200

brianthebard wrote: »

As I asked the op above, how much have the public sector wages been cut by now? You think they've refused cuts?

They HAVE refused cuts - they just didn't have a choice. They've been cut by 10 - 20%.

Both my parents work for the Government (and it sounds like you do too), they've both been on the end of the pay cuts.

brianthebard

I don't work for the Govt but good for you making assumptions. Nor do my parents if that was your next guess.
At least you realise how much the public sector wages have been cut. You seem hell bent on ignoring the fact that more cuts will only suck money out of the economy.

JuliusCaesar

Mark200 wrote: »

So who should the Government 'target'? The public sector workers are the Government's employees! A huge portion of the Government's spending goes towards their wages - there's not much other areas that the Government CAN reduce spending.

If I was working for an employer that was billions of Euro in the read, you can be damn sure I wouldn't go crying about a 10 - 20% pay cut.

Ah. Your reference to your parents makes me think that you are yet young - with few responsibilities and no dependents. Perhaps you are a dependent?

Public servants are employed by the government to do the government's work. To apply their policies and to work for the public good. (Don't forget, during FF's reign, the Civil Service actually expanded.)

However, if you were earning say 40K at the age of 36: you have a mortgage, you have a wife (working part-time for 20K, say), and the usual 2 kids, and your outgoings (mortgage, bills, car, creche, etc) are dangerously close to your income, you may well feel that a pay cut will or might bring you over the edge. Of course you'll protest.

whadabouchasir

brianthebard wrote: »

Eh, the op doesn't even have a point. And there comes a time when making further cuts to save money now only continues to hurt the economy in the medium-long term, and we have already reached or even surpassed that point.

My point is that right now we are spending more on public services than we are taking in taxes.So pay cuts or job losses are inevitable if we don't want the IMF to be running our country.I believe that pay cuts is the lesser of two evils here and if necessary there should be more of them in the future.I am frustarted however with the unions failure to acknowledge that we have a problem and that we need to adress it.

brianthebard

You don't acknowledge the possibility of tax increases? Also the IMF is not going to be runnign the country, don't be scaremongering.

CrazyRabbit

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

OK, it is actually true.

1. If your gross pay is cut, your tax also reduces to reflect the lower salary, so the government gets less tax in.

2. When people hear that they might be taking a pay cut, or more than one pay cut, they start not spending so much money. This has two effects:
A. Less indirect tax (eg VAT) is taken by the govenment.
B. Because people are spending less, there is less money being paid for goods and services. So the people providing goods and services are taking less money in, and so their businesses are on the edge or worse.....which might lead to their workers getting pay cuts/working less hours (which is beginning to lead us back to points 1 and 2) or they become unemployed - and became a drain on the already reduced tax take.

Any more explanation necessary?

People keep their money for essentials (mortgage, bills, etc) and no longer spend freely. This leads to a downward spiral.

Couldn't have said it better. It's the reply I was about to type out

Pay cuts and increased taxes actually hurt the economy in the long run, since there is less money being spent in retail outlets who then pay less tax and have to reduce their workforce. And of course that means more people on the dole. Every person on the dole is another person not paying taxes!

jimmycrackcorm

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't work for the Govt but good for you making assumptions. Nor do my parents if that was your next guess.
At least you realise how much the public sector wages have been cut. You seem hell bent on ignoring the fact that more cuts will only suck money out of the economy.

Yes but we're talking about the public service here. Cuts there are beneficial taking into consideration the state of the public finances; Cuts, via tax hikes etc in the private sector have a higher impact in taking money out of the economy as the private sector generates wealth, including money to pay for public services.

ricman

The government have to borrow money ,millions every week to pay the wages
of the public sector.They have to cut at least 3billion from the budget for the next 3 years in order to balance the budget.
WE are surviving at the moment by selling ,government bonds.
IF the international market decides the state is overspending,we will get NO more loans.
SO the government have no choice.
OF course its ridiculous they are spending 25 billion to rescue anglo ,which means we will be in debt for 30 years paying for bankers mistakes.
Either the unions are stupid ,or ignorant ,or arrogant or they know feck all or do not care about basic economics.
ALL the civil servants wage rises ,and pensions were based on fantasy .
That an economy based on a property bubble, easy credit could grow
forever ,even as wages rose beyond other european countrys.

I see hundreds of teachers are retiring early to take their pensions
be4 the lump sums get taxed.
Would they prefer that the imf comes in and just reduces everyones wages by 50per cent .
ITS obscene that theres some politicians on 3 pensions while
special needs posts in schools are being cut.
Half THE budget is civil service wages and pensions ,so it has to be reduced.
This economy will recover when the government gets civil servants wages and pensions to a realistic level .
AT least house prices are decreasing,so we may at some point be able to compete with other countrys.
The imf WILL come in if the government did not make cuts, we do not wanna end up like greece.
WE had a recession in the 80s, but we did not have 50 billion in debts.
The unions are pretending there is no problem in public finances or it can be solved by early retirement,or more taxes.
higher taxes.

Mark200

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't work for the Govt but good for you making assumptions.

I didn't make any assumptions. I said it sounds like you do. I didn't assume that you did.

brianthebard wrote: »

You seem hell bent on ignoring the fact that more cuts will only suck money out of the economy.

Right, so why doesn't the Government give a million Euro to every citizen of Ireland. More money into the economy right?

brianthebard wrote: »

You don't acknowledge the possibility of tax increases? Also the IMF is not going to be runnign the country, don't be scaremongering.

So what's the difference between Ireland and Greece?

I'll tell you.. the difference is that the Irish Government made cuts.