€25m pi**ed up against the wall on Unions

Sizzler

Regardless of the country being fiscally f**ked, the below is an absolute outrage but unsurprising given who was behind the genius idea....

wrote:

By DANIEL McCONNELL and MAEVE SHEEHAN

Sunday July 18 2010

THE Government, using taxpayers' money, has provided a staggering €25m "slush fund" to unions involved in social partnership since 2004, a Sunday Independent investigation has revealed.

On foot of our recent inquires, senior government sources have revealed that the amount given to the unions will be halved next year.

Fine Gael's PJ Sheehan, who provided some of the figures to this newspaper, branded the monies as a "slush fund" that former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern set up to "keep everyone happy".

Despite unions threatening to disrupt the country with strikes during the recession, and the end of social partnership last December, monies are still being paid out.

And the extent of the State's financial support for the unions has been branded as "shocking" by Mr Sheehan.

Figures show that Batt O'Keeffe's Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation provided more than €10m of the €25m "slush fund". A further €11.4m was paid by the HSE as part of HSE Partnership forum.

This newspaper's research also shows that Mr O'Keeffe's department has channelled €10.2m into the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) for the "training and advice of trade union officials" since 2004.

Explaining the payout, Mr O'Keeffe said: "An annual grant is paid to assist the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in meeting the cost of providing its Education, Training and Advisory Services (ETAS), which provides training and advice for union officials and activists in affiliated unions."

The grants paid by the department to meet costs incurred by the ICTU in the operation of ETAS may cover up to 80 per cent of expenditure on training and advisory services for union officials and activists, he said.

In addition to that €10.2m spend, a further €1.1m has been paid out to social partners the ICTU, the employers' association IBEC and the Construction Industry Federation since 2007 as part of a Work Innovation Fund. Again, according to Mr O'Keeffe, this fund was designed "to support a range of social partner practices impacting on workplace innovation".

Last night it emerged that Mr O'Keeffe is intending to halve the subvention for ICTU training services next year.

A spokesman for the minister said: "The minister will closely monitor the State subvention and keep open the option to revise downwards the amount of money spent on it where competitive pressures and fewer public resources demand that such steps be taken."

Also, Fas has committed €3.89m to yet another learning initiative for low-skilled workers. More than €1.2m has already been paid to the ICTU between August 2008 and January this year.

The ICTU won the contract to manage the project, which runs until September this year. The money comes out of the Fas budget.

On top of these funds, figures reveal that another €3m or so has been paid out to welfare groups, charitable organisations and cross-border groups since 2004. Fine Gael said this fund shows the extent of how "Bertie Ahern sought to buy people off to keep the show on the road".

Mr Sheehan said, through his spokesman, that he asked for the information as part of a fact-finding exercise and was truly shocked at how much is being paid out to unions.

Our revelations come weeks after Siptu couldn't explain a €2.3m training fund from Mary Harney's Department of Health.

The department did not attach any terms or conditions setting out how the €2.3m fund paid to Siptu over several years should be spent.

This money was subsequently used to fund at least 31 overseas trips involving senior civil servants and trade union officials to destinations such as the US, Australia and Hong Kong.

Concerns over the fund's lack of proper accounting were first raised by auditors in the HSE. The department's money had been channelled through the HSE to Siptu.

Sleepy

So is it safe to say that the ICTU is a bunch of whores now? Since we're paying them to **** us I can't see what else we could call them...

127.0.0.1

tl:dr
Not only the state is controlled by these overglorified lobby groups, they also pay them

dvpower

Probably not a bad government strategy.
Get them hooked on free government money and if they get a bit uppity, turn off the tap.

Pete_Cavan

I dont see why unions should get any state money when all they do is reduce the competitiveness of the country and make it extremely difficult to implement even the most reasonable and necessary changes to work practices, pay and conditions, etc. I willl accept they do some good in defending workers rights but why should this be paid for through taxes? Maybe the unions should take a levy from the wages of the people they are supposed to be representing. At least that way workers would take more interest in their union and would ensure they have decent people representing them instead of the person with a beard who shouts the loudest! Unions have far too much power in this country. I know people who were forced to protest during the strikes last year on public sector pay cuts even though they did not agree with the strikes and were never given the opportunity may the union to express their views (no ballot). The union leaders just heard the word cuts and were up in arms straight away and everyone had to go along with them or they would be labelled "scabs".

Nody

Sleepy wrote: »

So is it safe to say that the ICTU is a bunch of whores now? Since we're paying them to **** us I can't see what else we could call them...

Brilliant negotiators?

Lets not kid ourselves who'll use the money in the funds here; that is not going to reach the regular workers after all! It will be used to do "study trips" and "investigate how other countries do X, Y or Z" in exotic countries.

Riskymove

Nody wrote: »

Brilliant negotiators?

negotiators???

Bertie: 'would you like a lot of money to......"train"......your members?' nod...wink...wink

ICTU: 'Free money? ......Why not!'

127.0.0.1

I wonder why union members are like sheep and never question why their unshaven "leaders" are getting 6 figure salaries

MrDarcy

You could only imagine how utterly lifechanging that type of funding would be to small business start-ups, allowing people to get off the dole and get into self employment. Instead it is forked out to the cossetted classes in our society who hold the rest of us to ransom time and time again. It's nothing less than revolting and sickening to see the state the country is in and money of this order handed over to organisations who have had no small part to play in the fact that this country is now bankrupt.

Pete_Cavan

127.0.0.1 wrote: »

I wonder why union members are like sheep and never question why their unshaven "leaders" are getting 6 figure salaries

If you asked the union leader he'd probably say something like "All animals are equal but some are more equal than other".

Sizzler

127.0.0.1 wrote: »

I wonder why union members are like sheep and never question why their unshaven "leaders" are getting 6 figure salaries

The lemmings who take to the streets following the likes of David Begg and his loudpspeaker banging on about workers rights and how his "comrades" are struggling to survive on public service salaries, the irony! Why doesnt he take a pay cut and join them instead of taking €125k a year? Clowns paying his wages.

€25m to apparently help educate Begg & O'Connor's minnions roger the government for years to come.

Its quite obvious Ahern gave these lads a robust platform to screw the public purse for decades to come and Cowen, Lenihan and now Batman don't have a breeze how to sort the mess out.

Its simply unbelievable that they can cut back on public services and neccessary healthcare but yet still pony up millions to a union! What other country would this happen in?! Banana replublic.

Can we have an audit please on exactly WTF this money is being used for? Im a taxpayer and I have a right to know!

Einhard

Would it be too cynical to suggest that perhaps Bertie set up this fund so that, should the union leadership ever become too much of a threat, he or FF would have an extremely damaging story to release, and thus undermine them? He wasn't called the most skilful, the most devious,the most cunning of them all for nothing...

maninasia

Whenever FF needed to deal with something for the last 10 years it was a case of throwing money at it to 'make it go away'. Or buy them off if you want to use these words...
There was no real negotiation, it was like, fair cop guv, can I write you a cheque and what number are you thinking of?

20Cent

Surely anger for this should be directed at FF rather than the unions? They are just a lobby group like any other. The decisions are ultimately made by government.

127.0.0.1

20Cent wrote: »

Surely anger for this should be directed at FF rather than the unions? They are just a lobby group like any other. The decisions are ultimately made by government.

There is plenty of anger at FF, don't be trying to deflect the blame now :rolleyes:
Everyone knows that Fianna Fail are a bunch of useless feckers, but there is still a belief among some that the unions are the "good guys out to protect the poor worker" when in reality they are yet another and very powerful lobby group that helped drive this country to the ground

20Cent

127.0.0.1 wrote: »

There is plenty of anger at FF, don't be trying to deflect the blame now :rolleyes:
Everyone knows that Fianna Fail are a bunch of useless feckers, but there is still a belief among some that the unions are the "good guys out to protect the poor worker" when in reality they are yet another and very powerful lobby group that helped drive this country to the ground

The unions try to get the best pay and conditions they can. Running the economy is the governments job. This story sounds like another excuse to bash unions. No surprise coming from the sindo
Lemmings, beards? Thought there were rules about name calling on boards?

127.0.0.1

20Cent wrote: »

Lemmings, beards? Thought there were rules about name calling on boards?

I have neither called them beards nor lemmings, But I did call the members "sheep" for failing to ask tough questions of their leaders

20Cent wrote: »

The unions try to get the best pay and conditions they can.

How would you feel about the government handing money to another lobby/interest groups? I dont know lets say the bankers and developers, oh wait ...

20Cent wrote: »

Running the economy is the governments job.

What about handing money out to organizations who are not democraticaly elected by the people of this country and have shown the willingness to hold the country and its people ransom, is that also the governments job?

ardmacha

€25m pissed away on unions. That's about 0.02% of the amount pissed away on banks.

SkepticOne

dvpower wrote: »

Probably not a bad government strategy.
Get them hooked on free government money and if they get a bit uppity, turn off the tap.

I think it was a case of give them money because they are uppity and if they get more uppity give them more money.

Until the recent economic unpleasantness, the unions were one of the groups the government looked after. Remember that when Bertie made his famous suicide remarks targeting those who did not agree with his economic policies, it was in front of an audience of guffawing trade unionists.

The_Thing

ardmacha wrote: »

€25m pissed away on unions. That's about 0.02% of the amount pissed away on banks.

Yeah, the usual suspects conveniently forget that it is the private-sector banks that have brought us to where we are.

127.0.0.1

ardmacha wrote: »

€25m pissed away on unions. That's about 0.02% of the amount pissed away on banks.

One crime does not excuse another crime

20Cent

127.0.0.1 wrote: »

I have neither called them beards nor lemmings, But I did call the members "sheep" for failing to ask tough questions of their leaders


How would you feel about the government handing money to another lobby/interest groups? I dont know lets say the bankers and developers, oh wait ...



What about handing money out to organizations who are not democraticaly elected by the people of this country and have shown the willingness to hold the country and its people ransom, is that also the governments job?

Apologies it was others calling names.

But sheep? Do you know how unions work? I´ve been to over a dozen meeting this year and had hundreds of emails. Everything is discussed argued, there are different factions and votes are cast. Its a democratic process. What is the alternative?

I´m totally against the bailouts of the banks particularly the zombie ones, also against all the wastage I see.

A one day strike, not answering some phones and an overtime ban in the passport office has not been "holding the country to ransom".

If you want to direct your anger somewhere I suggest FF.

RuggieBear

wonder if 25mil would fund a cystic fibrosis ward?

murphaph

The_Thing wrote: »

Yeah, the usual suspects conveniently forget that it is the private-sector banks that have brought us to where we are.

You're deluding yourself if you think we only have the banks to blame. We have a political class and ourselves to blame too. Why can't a lot of Irish people ever accept any personal responsibility for stuff? :rolleyes:

127.0.0.1

20Cent wrote: »

Apologies it was others calling names.

But sheep? Do you know how unions work? I´ve been to over a dozen meeting this year and had hundreds of emails. Everything is discussed argued, there are different factions and votes are cast. Its a democratic process. What is the alternative?

I´m totally against the bailouts of the banks particularly the zombie ones, also against all the wastage I see.

A one day strike, not answering some phones and an overtime ban in the passport office has not been "holding the country to ransom".

If you want to direct your anger somewhere I suggest FF.

I have plenty of anger to go about, and no I havent forgoten about FF

Next time you are at a meeting ask as simple question

"Why are our esteemed leaders earning 6 figure salaries?"

See how that one goes down :rolleyes:

ardmacha

You're deluding yourself if you think we only have the banks to blame. We have a political class and ourselves to blame too. Why can't a lot of Irish people ever accept any personal responsibility for stuff?

Fair enough. But it is similar to the usual assertion on this forum that the public service is somehow to blame, rather than the politicians elected by the public to set public policy which directs that service.

Sizzler

ardmacha wrote: »

€25m pissed away on unions. That's about 0.02% of the amount pissed away on banks.

The_Thing wrote: »

Yeah, the usual suspects conveniently forget that it is the private-sector banks that have brought us to where we are.

The same banks that were "regulated" by one Pat Neary, you guessed it a civil servant !

Vicious circle, a clueless dept of finance, a regulator napping on the job, unions seizing on an opportunity to nail the govt when there was a few bob floating around, all intrinsically linked to contribute to the financial downfall of the country.

ardmacha

Vicious circle, a clueless dept of finance, a regulator napping on the job, unions seizing on an opportunity to nail the govt when there was a few bob floating around, all intrinsically linked to contribute to the financial downfall of the country.

There is a difference. The Dept of Finance, Central Bank etc did not in any sense do their job and can blamed for this.

The Unions simply did do their job. If the government and banks and so on declared the boom to be real and lasting then of course unions and other people asked for a share. Some people here seem to think that anyone who benefitted from the boom should have conducted an alternative macro economic analysis to the professionals and refrained from participation.

Sleepy

RuggieBear wrote: »

wonder if 25mil would fund a cystic fibrosis ward?

or vaccines to prevent cancer for the little girls of this country...

Liam Byrne

murphaph wrote: »

You're deluding yourself if you think we only have the banks to blame. We have a political class and ourselves to blame too. Why can't a lot of Irish people ever accept any personal responsibility for stuff? :rolleyes:

I've asked this in another thread; given that I :

a) didn't vote FF
b) didn't borrow too much
c) lived within in my means, charging a fair wage

....what "personal responsibility" should I take for "stuff" ?

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

There is a difference. The Dept of Finance, Central Bank etc did not in any sense do their job and can blamed for this.

The Unions simply did do their job. If the government and banks and so on declared the boom to be real and lasting then of course unions and other people asked for a share. Some people here seem to think that anyone who benefitted from the boom should have conducted an alternative macro economic analysis to the professionals and refrained from participation.

Well if thats the attitude, then sure didnt the banks etc do their jobs.. They made as much money as they could, walked away with a fortune and left the mess for us to pick up.. Developers did the same, jumped on the bandwagon, and spend our kids futures..

Forcing the hand of an inept government while still taking slush funds is just as corrupt as all the other goings on that have left this country on the brink...

20Cent

127.0.0.1 wrote: »

I have plenty of anger to go about, and no I havent forgoten about FF

Next time you are at a meeting ask as simple question

"Why are our esteemed leaders earning 6 figure salaries?"

See how that one goes down :rolleyes:

I´ve heard it asked and much worse criticisms made.
Don´t see what union leader salaries have to do with anything tbh. They have a tough responsible job.

You seem to be under the impression that unions are some kind of dictatorship where people are afraid to speak out or something?
"Esteemed leader" like North Korea!! The sarcastic smllie as if questions like that are never asked.

Unions are in fact the most democratic of all of the lobby groups.

Sand

Don´t see what union leader salaries have to do with anything tbh.

Arent they linked to the higher ranking civil servants pay?

ardmacha

Well if thats the attitude, then sure didnt the banks etc do their jobs.. They made as much money as they could, walked away with a fortune and left the mess for us to pick up..

No. Union leaders secured increases for their members in line with the increased prosperity.

Bank managers inflated lending far beyond economic growth, abandoned all traditional prudent practices and lost all their shareholders money in the process.
Developers borrowed money they couldn't pay back.

I repeat, if the government, banks etc stated that there was a boom and that it was entirely sustainable, and only going to get better, what is unreasonable about expecting higher wages in that environment, if only to pay for increased house prices etc.

If the government had warned of economic collapse and the unions had repeated strikes for increases in that environment then that would have been reprehensible, but that did not happen. There was no forcing of the hand of the government, the government was a willing partner, acting on behalf of the majority of people who voted for it.

the_syco

dvpower wrote: »

Probably not a bad government strategy.
Get them hooked on free government money and if they get a bit uppity, turn off the tap.

Except the unions can just get it's members to strike.

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

If the government had warned of economic collapse and the unions had repeated strikes for increases in that environment then that would have been reprehensible, but that did not happen. There was no forcing of the hand of the government, the government was a willing partner, acting on behalf of the majority of people who voted for it.

Really? Are we not on the brink of economic collapse? And did the unions not implement "go slows" and force the CP agreement which protects pay rights, and inefficiency within the HSE, FAS etc?

No forcing of hand?

"Mr O'Connor said unions will have "no alternative" but to embark on a prolonged industrial campaign if new talks on a national rescue plan show no "potential" for agreement.He said his union already holds an overwhelming mandate for industrial action since it balloted on a campaign of national work stoppages last month.
Employers' group IBEC last night described Mr O'Connor's remarks as "unhelpful"."


http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/siptu-strike-threat-deadline-puts-a-gun-to-cowens-head-1713698.html


(simple random quote... millions of others available)

ardmacha

Don't change the context. The point is that during the boom the unions sought to get their members their fair share. This was a respsonsible and appropriate thing to do in a situation where the government, banks etc had declared the boom a lasting and sustainable one.

The actions of bank managers, developers etc were not responsible. The actions of banks and developers continue not to be responsible.

Liam Byrne

Welease wrote: »

Well if thats the attitude, then sure didnt the banks etc do their jobs.. They made as much money as they could, walked away with a fortune and left the mess for us to pick up.. Developers did the same, jumped on the bandwagon, and spend our kids futures..

Forcing the hand of an inept government while still taking slush funds is just as corrupt as all the other goings on that have left this country on the brink...

You're correct, to a point; however all others that you mention are private enterprise and can be expected to work to maximise their position and profits.....their actions might be despicable, but given the nature of greedy capitalism, are in context.

The Department and Central Bank and Regulator and TDs are, on the other hand, meant to represent the best interests of the country.

They failed. Miserably and catastrophically.

Sizzler

ardmacha wrote: »

The Unions simply did do their job. If the government and banks and so on declared the boom to be real and lasting then of course unions and other people asked for a share. Some people here seem to think that anyone who benefitted from the boom should have conducted an alternative macro economic analysis to the professionals and refrained from participation.

Amazing though how willing the unions were to seize the financial opportunity for their members when times were good but as soon as things got bad they werent willing to give a cent back without orchestrating mayhem in the public sector. Very balanced organisation.

Whatever you may think of unions the fundamental issue here is government money should not be used to propel a niche interest group who's job it is to frequently rifle the government coffers and cause obstruction, its akin to giving a gang member an extra few bullets, they'll just do more damage.

If you want to support a union and subscribe that is your right but I do not want my taxes used to bankroll Begg & Co. Its a disgrace whatever way you dress it up.

bamboozle

dvpower wrote: »

Probably not a bad government strategy.
Get them hooked on free government money and if they get a bit uppity, turn off the tap.

would be a good govt strategy if our govt actually stood up to them and turn off the tap rather than current strategy of taking sh1t from the unions.

127.0.0.1

ardmacha wrote: »

No. Union leaders secured increases for their members in line with the increased prosperity.

In case you havent noticed, prosperity decreased lately

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The Department and Central Bank and Regulator and TDs are, on the other hand, meant to represent the best interests of the country.

Yes they have failed, But the unions represent a small but powerful minority that has held this country ransom causing disruptions, and its leaders were not elected by the people of this country, but yet are being paid from the state purse

Flex

ardmacha wrote: »

No. Union leaders secured increases for their members in line with the increased prosperity.

Bank managers inflated lending far beyond economic growth, abandoned all traditional prudent practices and lost all their shareholders money in the process.
Developers borrowed money they couldn't pay back.

I repeat, if the government, banks etc stated that there was a boom and that it was entirely sustainable, and only going to get better, what is unreasonable about expecting higher wages in that environment, if only to pay for increased house prices etc.

If the government had warned of economic collapse and the unions had repeated strikes for increases in that environment then that would have been reprehensible, but that did not happen. There was no forcing of the hand of the government, the government was a willing partner, acting on behalf of the majority of people who voted for it.

The public sector was receiving pay increases in line with prosperity at the time though. When the initial look into benchmarking was done it was found the public sector already had a pay premium of (on average) 8%. It was also found that this 8% gap existed in the 90's too, so PS pay rates increased at the same rate as their counter parts in the private sector did. That 8% was just on a pay comparison basis too; it didnt make provision for pension benefits or job security, etc. The pay rises were sought based on the lie that public sector pay was being completely left behind in the boom.

The government needs to act on behalf of the people it represents once again and start paying fair rates of pay to its employees (as it always should have). A completely new benchmarking process should occur. The 'problem' with this is that apparantly its the ones nearer the top of the PS that are closest in line (or even behind) their counterparts in the private sector, its the ones who arent as highly paid who are enjoying the largest premium.

Regards the money wasted on the unions, email government TD's in your constituency and government backbenchers. Its the only way theyll start to pay attention.

Nijmegen

A one day strike, not answering some phones and an overtime ban in the passport office has not been "holding the country to ransom".

I pay my taxes so that when I ring someone in the public sector, which I have to do often because it has its greasy mits on so much of our lives, I get a prompt answer and a decent level of customer care. That was rare enough before the bust.

As for the unions getting government pay offs, those guys are just as much a part of the golden circle as the bankers and the rest. Just look at board memberships of their top people, and compare to those of bankers in years gone by.

All the same stuff.

Pete_Cavan

ardmacha wrote: »

No. Union leaders secured increases for their members in line with the increased prosperity.

I repeat, if the government, banks etc stated that there was a boom and that it was entirely sustainable, and only going to get better, what is unreasonable about expecting higher wages in that environment, if only to pay for increased house prices etc.

So you're saying that if the government said that the boom was only temporary the unions would have said "Fair enough, we dont need any pay increases so". I think not. The unions played their part in increasing house prices by demanding higher wages which forced house prices even higher. They also played a huge part in inflating the cost of labour in this country to unsustainabe levels.

While they did not cause the crash, the unions contributed to it greatly because when it did come we were extremely uncompetitive in terms of labour costs, had a grossly inefficient and overpaid public sector and a hugely blotted welfare bill. Yet these people would not accept lower wages in line with decreased prosperity or decreasing house prices. Seems very hypocritical to me.

The unions in this country are far too powerful. But this power comes about through government funds, tax payers money that should be spent on schools and hospitals. They have a huge influence over the country's economic performance and yet they are not elected by the people of the country and cannot be held accountable in the way the government can. We already have a minimum wage, Labour Court, Labour Relations Commission and a legal system that deals with workers rights etc. if the unions were providing a necessary service they would not need this government slush fund.

doc_17

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

So you're saying that if the government said that the boom was only temporary the unions would have said "Fair enough, we dont need any pay increases so". I think not. The unions played their part in increasing house prices by demanding higher wages which forced house prices even higher. They also played a huge part in inflating the cost of labour in this country to unsustainabe levels.

While they did not cause the crash, the unions contributed to it greatly because when it did come we were extremely uncompetitive in terms of labour costs, had a grossly inefficient and overpaid public sector and a hugely blotted welfare bill. Yet these people would not accept lower wages in line with decreased prosperity or decreasing house prices. Seems very hypocritical to me.

Ah hello? Pay cuts in the last budget? Pension Levy? Income Levy? Increase in Health and PRSI levies? So we didn't accept them? Dam. If only I'd known. Then I could have rang the department of education and told them that i'm not accepting those cuts.

Pete_Cavan

ardmacha wrote: »

No. Union leaders secured increases for their members in line with the increased prosperity.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

While they did not cause the crash, the unions contributed to it greatly because when it did come we were extremely uncompetitive in terms of labour costs, had a grossly inefficient and overpaid public sector and a hugely blotted welfare bill. Yet these people would not accept lower wages in line with decreased prosperity or decreasing house prices. Seems very hypocritical to me.

doc_17 wrote: »

Ah hello? Pay cuts in the last budget? Pension Levy? Income Levy? Increase in Health and PRSI levies? So we didn't accept them? Dam. If only I'd known. Then I could have rang the department of education and told them that i'm not accepting those cuts.

In the part of my quote that you highlighted in your post, you conveniently left out the bit about "in line with prosperity". There have been cuts but not near enough. We are borrowing €20bn a year to keep the country going and we are going to have to cut expenditure somewhere. If it doesn't come from PS wages it will come from the quality of facilities and level of service provided by the PS, i.e. less schools built and fewer beds in hospitals.

My point was that we are being forced into maintaining PS wages at unacceptable levels, at the expense of vital services, by unions who are rejecting the Croke Park agreement. If the government cuts PS wages unions will call for all out strikes so instead we are getting cuts in rest bite facilities, and that is just the start.

Oh and please dont mention the pension levy. The money goes towards your very generous pension and it is only fair that you contribute more. The private sector doesn't have such a luxury.

Coleyoscar

The Sunday Independent has been engaged in a virulent anti-public service and anti-trade union campaign for the past couple of years. You have to treat any of the 'facts' they quote with great suspicion. Time and again they have refused people with an alternative view the chance to offer their side of the argument on their pages - so much for the self-styled 'free press'.
The fact is that working conditions in the public service are decent. It's also a fact that the level of membership of trades unions in the public service is very high. These facts are not unconnected.
The best way for ordinary people to defend themselves and improve their
conditions is to band together (the self-employed do it; the farmers do it;
the bankers do it; the stock brokers do it; the lawyers do it - why shouldn't
the workers?). The childish name-calling and exaggerations ('sheep';
'unshaven', and so on) are exactly what the powerful people in society want.
While ordinary people, private sector or public sector, are fighting each,
other using ammunition provided by right-wing hacks, the tax-exile owners of big newspapers and radio stations - the real 'bosses' - are delighted. We
should not allow ourselves to be fooled like this.

Head The Wall

I don't read the Sunday Indo and I am anti trade unions and public sector.

What do you say to that Jack O' Connor, the fact that I make up my own mind and don't follow a newspapers agenda?

doc_17

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

While they did not cause the crash, the unions contributed to it greatly because when it did come we were extremely uncompetitive in terms of labour costs, had a grossly inefficient and overpaid public sector and a hugely blotted welfare bill. Yet these people would not accept lower wages in line with decreased prosperity or decreasing house prices. Seems very hypocritical to me.

.

Ok I'll "convienently" highlight a different part of your post. If your arguement is to cut pay in the same way as house prices have fallen then were you in favour of increasing pay in previous years based on how much house prices were rising?

I highlighted that part of your post as you said that PS workers were not willing to accept pay cuts when the opposite is true. PS workers have taken an average of a 7.5% pay cut (excluding pension levy) in the past year. So your above statement is WRONG.

ardmacha

If it doesn't come from PS wages it will come from the quality of facilities and level of service provided by the PS,

It could come from the private sector paying a reasonable level of taxation and not squandering money on get rich quick schemes.

by unions who are rejecting the Croke Park agreement

Unions, in general, have not rejected the Croke Park agreement.

Oh and please dont mention the pension levy. The money goes towards your very generous pension and it is only fair that you contribute more

The pension levy is a pay cut, it does not go towards pensions. This is not rocket science.

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

The pension levy is a pay cut, it does not go towards pensions. This is not rocket science.

Then people should stop claiming they pay a good percentgage of their gold plated pension.. Not to mention that if it was actually a pay cut of 5%, then your final pension would reflect this (and the payouts would be 5% less).. which to the best of my knowledge it doesn't. It's a levy.