Minimum Wage - Will it be reduced in the bailout?

BeeDI

Much talk about corp tax being forced up as a condition of the alms to the poor from Europe / IMF.
On the other hand, what will happen to the min wage? Not as a condition of the bailout, but as a natural consequence, to help get employment activity moving. 20% reduction anyone???

Cookie_Monster

It needs to be but welfare rates have to be cut to a greater extent to ensure its actually still worth working for minimum wage. The min wage drives every other wage bracket above it also in a sense and a total downward shift is needed to make this country attractive for companies to operate in. It won't though

andrewire

The reason why the minimum wage is so high --compared to the EU-- is that we have a low corporation tax and (large) companies can afford to pay it. However, I think they should introduce categories so that small businesses can pay a sum, e.g. €6.5/hour, medium-sized businesses another rate. e.g. €7.0 and the rest pay the regular €8.65. But it won't happen.

They should cut the welfare to be honest. I understand some people really need it but many are just living off the state, don't want to work, spend most money on alcohol... Sorry to generalise.

johnnyskeleton

Surely it wouldn't be too much of a hardship to reduce it to 2006 levels of 7.65 or so? I mean, that was the very height of the bubble and no one starved.

motherriley

This is what it is in the UK and do not tell me that it will not be cut it is always the poor that will get hit first and will feel it the hardest , it will never change:mad:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_178175

dermo88

In the context of Ireland, a reduction in the minimum wage to around E6.25 per hour in tandem with cuts in social welfare would be a good idea. However, there have to be concessions on the Government side also, such as a cut in flat taxes such as TV licences, and other statutory fixed fees dressed as licenses, regulatory items etc.

The minimum wage was introduced in 1999, at a time when the economy was running at full capacity. It was meant to protect the vulnerable from exploitation by abusive employers, of which there are a few, who I would happily name and shame were it not for Irelands draconian libel laws. The same draconian libel laws which serve the elite, not the people.

With reduced tax income, there is a need to get people back to work. There is a need to reduce the tax free band to around 200 Euro per week, and raise the lower rate to 25%. It is not a question of whether the rich, or the politicians or the elite pay enough tax. Simply, that everyone should pay a little bit of tax.

The tax system is already skewed too heavily on the consumption angle, which is why in the period 2000-2007 there were complaints about how expensive Ireland was.

The minimum wage was just one reflection of that, and it was why many Irish workers felt it beneath themselves to work in McDonalds, or other low paid jobs.

Rents have to come down. Health costs also. On so many angles, Ireland needs to continue down the path of internal devaluation, in order to start again.

On the Government angle, it must always be asked...."Is this needed", rather than "Is this wanted", and we need a leadership that looks towards the interests of all, rather than factional groups such as CIF (Tom Parlon) to name but one example.

Ireland is better off having 200,000 more people earning a lower minimum wage than 200,000 earning nothing at all.

It may be called Thatcherite, right wing, brutal, but its whats needed. The minimum wage is now unrealistically high, reflecting the initial low rate that the Irish Pound traded into the Euro back in 1999 vis a vis the Dollar and Pound Sterling. Its not about being popular, its about being realistic.

There are so many angles on which Irish society was poisoned by the boom. The private sector on a small scale, small and medium sized businesses should be the vehicle that will get Ireland out of this mess. Training young workers and getting them skilled costs employers money. Having an excessively high minimum wage acts as a disincentive to employ the least skilled, and training them to a point where they can earn more.

A minimum wage of E8,45 per hour is populist nonsense. A minimum wage of E6,25 per hour is closer to the needs of Ireland right now, and is close enough to other economies in a better predicament. But it needs a lot of cuts on the cost side to justify it. Then it can be implemented.

CCCP

The problem with ireland is that almost everything is obscenely overpriced here, and the average wages and social welfare reflect that, I read a study, I cant find it now but Im sure I could dig it up if someone wants to have a read, that suggest That the average single adult on a basic social welfare payment (196 per week) needs to find an extra 60 or so just to make ends meet, the thing that struck me about this study is that I, having been on social welfare for over a year up untill recently, had to find exactly this amount each week in order to live, and thats living hand to mouth.

I wouldnt mind any drop in wages or social welfare payments so long as the cost of living came down to a more realistic level to match our other European counterparts , ie the other small countries of the EU.

If lowering wages and payments would lead to lower costs of goods and services, then Im all for it. If not, then I guess there will be alot of hungry and cold people this Christmas.

not yet

dermo88 wrote: »

In the context of Ireland, a reduction in the minimum wage to around E6.25 per hour in tandem with cuts in social welfare would be a good idea. However, there have to be concessions on the Government side also, such as a cut in flat taxes such as TV licences, and other statutory fixed fees dressed as licenses, regulatory items etc.

The minimum wage was introduced in 1999, at a time when the economy was running at full capacity. It was meant to protect the vulnerable from exploitation by abusive employers, of which there are a few, who I would happily name and shame were it not for Irelands draconian libel laws. The same draconian libel laws which serve the elite, not the people.

With reduced tax income, there is a need to get people back to work. There is a need to reduce the tax free band to around 200 Euro per week, and raise the lower rate to 25%. It is not a question of whether the rich, or the politicians or the elite pay enough tax. Simply, that everyone should pay a little bit of tax.

The tax system is already skewed too heavily on the consumption angle, which is why in the period 2000-2007 there were complaints about how expensive Ireland was.

The minimum wage was just one reflection of that, and it was why many Irish workers felt it beneath themselves to work in McDonalds, or other low paid jobs.

Rents have to come down. Health costs also. On so many angles, Ireland needs to continue down the path of internal devaluation, in order to start again.

On the Government angle, it must always be asked...."Is this needed", rather than "Is this wanted", and we need a leadership that looks towards the interests of all, rather than factional groups such as CIF (Tom Parlon) to name but one example.

Ireland is better off having 200,000 more people earning a lower minimum wage than 200,000 earning nothing at all.

It may be called Thatcherite, right wing, brutal, but its whats needed. The minimum wage is now unrealistically high, reflecting the initial low rate that the Irish Pound traded into the Euro back in 1999 vis a vis the Dollar and Pound Sterling. Its not about being popular, its about being realistic.

There are so many angles on which Irish society was poisoned by the boom. The private sector on a small scale, small and medium sized businesses should be the vehicle that will get Ireland out of this mess. Training young workers and getting them skilled costs employers money. Having an excessively high minimum wage acts as a disincentive to employ the least skilled, and training them to a point where they can earn more.

A minimum wage of E8,45 per hour is populist nonsense. A minimum wage of E6,25 per hour is closer to the needs of Ireland right now, and is close enough to other economies in a better predicament. But it needs a lot of cuts on the cost side to justify it. Then it can be implemented.

Yipee....lets cut minimum wage to 4euro, then we can become competitive, and watch all the fat cats get fatter.

dvpower

dermo88 wrote: »

A minimum wage of E6,25 per hour is closer to the needs of Ireland right now, and is close enough to other economies in a better predicament. But it needs a lot of cuts on the cost side to justify it. Then it can be implemented.

not yet wrote: »

Yipee....lets cut minimum wage to 4euro, then we can become competitive, and watch all the fat cats get fatter.

Where did €4 come from?

seamus

not yet wrote: »

Yipee....lets cut minimum wage to 4euro, then we can become competitive, and watch all the fat cats get fatter.

Dropping minimum wage does not automatically mean that those who are currently being paid minimum wage will see their wages drop. They are still contractually entitled to €8.45 per hour and their employer cannot unilaterally cut their wages without their agreement.
In any case, those on the minimum wage have been immune from wage cuts up to this point, despite 3 years of recession. This has been crippling employers who have an artificial floor on their wages, with the result that more people have been laid off than might otherwise have been necessary if they were allowed to cut their wage. I'm sure anyone on minimum wage would rather lose 84c per hour than lose their job.

What a lower minimum wage will do is reduce the barrier for employers to hire new entry-level, low and unskilled workers. An employer at the moment might have enough work for two people @ €7 per hour, but current minimum wage levels mean that he can only pay one guy to do it because it would cost nearly €17 per hour to hire two. As a result, we have one person in employement, one person out of employment and a company struggling to meet its targets because it cannot hire staff to take on any increased workload.

A drop in minimum wage means that he can take on that second guy and now we have two people employed, the company is making more money because it has a greater output, and as a result the state can gather more income tax, CT and all the other knock-on taxes from the increased goods production.

Max Power1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It needs to be but welfare rates have to be cut to a greater extent to ensure its actually still worth working for minimum wage. The min wage drives every other wage bracket above it also in a sense and a total downward shift is needed to make this country attractive for companies to operate in. It won't though

This is the crux of the point.

I (and I worked for minimum wage for a couple of years up to 2007) believe that minimum wage here is too high.

However, if min wage is to be cut, it must be met with JA cuts. (personally I believe JSB shouldnt be cut, as it is contribution based).If it is decided to reduce min wage without a corollary decrease in JA, then it wont result in job creation, rather in job losses. It simply wont be worth people's while to work for a lower min wage if they can "earn" 70% of the min wage by claiming the dole.

motherriley

seamus wrote: »

Dropping minimum wage does not automatically mean that those who are currently being paid minimum wage will see their wages drop. They are still contractually entitled to €8.45 per hour and their employer cannot unilaterally cut their wages without their agreement.
In any case, those on the minimum wage have been immune from wage cuts up to this point, despite 3 years of recession. This has been crippling employers who have an artificial floor on their wages, with the result that more people have been laid off than might otherwise have been necessary if they were allowed to cut their wage. I'm sure anyone on minimum wage would rather lose 84c per hour than lose their job.

What a lower minimum wage will do is reduce the barrier for employers to hire new entry-level, low and unskilled workers. An employer at the moment might have enough work for two people @ €7 per hour, but current minimum wage levels mean that he can only pay one guy to do it because it would cost nearly €17 per hour to hire two. As a result, we have one person in employement, one person out of employment and a company struggling to meet its targets because it cannot hire staff to take on any increased workload.

A drop in minimum wage means that he can take on that second guy and now we have two people employed, the company is making more money because it has a greater output, and as a result the state can gather more income tax, CT and all the other knock-on taxes from the increased goods production.

Got plenty to cut from these fat cats ..:eek:


http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2010/finacc1.pdf


http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2010/finnacct3.pdf


http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2010/finacc2.pdf

seamus

motherriley wrote: »

Got plenty to cut from these fat cats ..:eek:
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2010/finacc1.pdf
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2010/finnacct3.pdf
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2010/finacc2.pdf

...and that will save us, what, exactly? The total salaries listed there come to roughly €80m/year. Even if we cut them all in half, that's €40m a year. Only another €14,960 million to go. Keep 'em coming.

fudgez

seamus wrote: »

...and that will save us, what, exactly? The total salaries listed there come to roughly €80m/year. Even if we cut them all in half, that's €40m a year. Only another €14,960 million to go. Keep 'em coming.

People get too far too uppity about politicians pay! I for one think politicians should have a fairly high standard of living! these are after all the people elected to RUN the country! Now weather or not we're electing the right people is another question.... We aren't!

krd

andrewire wrote: »

They should cut the welfare to be honest. I understand some people really need it but many are just living off the state, don't want to work, spend most money on alcohol... Sorry to generalise.

Each Developer in with NAMA gets a stipend of around €200k per annum for giving their gracious cooperation.

They spend their money on fine dining and expensive alcohol. How much should they get cut by - or do you think since they're the "wealth creators" they shouldn't be touched?

Cutting welfare will yield a pittance and just increase hardship and suffering. I know if it gives right-wingers a hardon on to kick the poor when their down. But I think those boot kicks are miss directed. No one on the dole was flying down to Morocco on a private jets, bouncing Irish dolly birds on their laps on your money. I think you're angry with the wrong people. Or maybe your in denial and won't accept your heroes were, are and always will be the bums.

The cumulative effect of even the most work shy in Ireland over a century wouldn't come near the amount of damage a single NAMA developer has caused to the country. And most NAMA developers were ignorant men too lazy to do basic maths. McNammara's deal on the Irish bottling plant was absolutely insane. Why bother with brains when you're rich and powerful? - Thinking is for the thick people?

Cutting minimum wage will have a negligible effect on employment. In fact cutting it would have a negative effect on employment. That's not just theory, that has been proven. Minimum wage creates stimulus. Without it you'll end up with one gombeen man owning every shop and pub in the village and very few people able to afford either. Back to the old days, dirty smelly shops and pubs. The good old days before minimum wage.

If you really want to see employment boosted call for upwardly only rent clauses to be outlawed. Currently, agents of large landlords are preferring to see businesses go down and sack all their staff than lower there rents. Grafton street is being abandoned. It's bargain basement book shops now - a few years time it'll be all pound shops if things keep going as they are.

Tourists do come for the shopping - Have you seen what Grafton street is becoming?

El Horseboxo

fudgez wrote: »

People get too far too uppity about politicians pay! I for one think politicians should have a fairly high standard of living! these are after all the people elected to RUN the country! Now weather or not we're electing the right people is another question.... We aren't!

Why? Like they could have done a worse job if they had a lower standard of living?

Why not apply the same thing to nurses, doctors, police, firemen, pilots, etc. I know i'd hope for my doctor, nurese, policeman, fireman, pilot to be well paid a hell of a lot more than a politician.

And to the other fella who said cutting their wages in half would only result in 40 million. Only 40 million is it? Ah sure it's not worth it so. Let them continue on being overpaid to run this country into the ground.

the_syco

motherriley wrote: »

This is what it is in the UK

Pfft. The £5.80 wage the UK got was often worth more than the €8.65 us paddies got.

fudgez wrote: »

People get too far too uppity about politicians pay! I for one think politicians should have a fairly high standard of living! these are after all the people elected to RUN the country! Now weather or not we're electing the right people is another question.... We aren't!

It's a job that people will lie to get into, and lie to stay there. Sure, who wouldn't, with such a nice pay scale. Heck, they voted themselves a pay increase about a month or so ago...

gleep

The minimum wage is a smaller problem than the tax bracket.Everyone should pay a certain level of tax on any weekly earnings over €100, maybe 10%. It's absurd to think we can raise enough taxes otherwise.

I don't agree with cutting welfare for people who have been working and paying taxes for years and have recently become unemployed. But, as for the thousands who claimed dole for years in the early-mid 2000's, I'd cut their money to €40 per week with the same again in food stamps.

bardcel

Thanks for above points krd i've noticed the second bookshops springing up too recently, sign of the times no doubt...must take a walk around again...we are currently in the middle of a s**t storm!!!

galway2007

Min wage will be cut back
They can put this in as a condition of a bailout which will lead to wage cuts across all section of the work force.
This will result in a massive rise in mortgage defaults as interest rates rise
This is the hole that banks and builders have dug for the Irish people

Amhran Nua

seamus wrote: »

They are still contractually entitled to €8.45 per hour and their employer cannot unilaterally cut their wages without their agreement.

If you believe that I've a bridge to sell you.

seamus wrote: »

This has been crippling employers who have an artificial floor on their wages

Its a pretty poor business model that is being crippled by a few extra euros a week. Lets say a hotel employs twenty people fulltime, they cut minimum wage by a euro, thats €800 a week saved. This is the equivalent to two rooms a night being filled in a cheap hotel. The benefit to the employer is utterly marginal. On the other hand, the cost to the employees is enormous, 12% of their wages gone in one swoop. And will the hotel hire two or three more people on the savings? Why would they? They are already fully staffed.

I don't think the minimum wage is a deciding factor in the cost of living in Ireland. We should first be looking at rack-renting in central retail spaces, rates not being paid on empty commercial properties, the possibility of cartel behaviour among the half a handful of retail chains that supply 90% of the staple goods in Ireland (something that would not require high level collusion, only a shopping basket analysis), and various other issues first.

ardmacha

It is pretty simple. If wages have fallen to 2005 levels or whatever, then the minimum wage should also be at the 2005 level. Anything else is effectively arguing for an increase in the minimum wage relative to other things, which is madness in a recession when there are so many employed.

Amhran Nua

ardmacha wrote: »

It is pretty simple. If wages have fallen to 2005 levels or whatever, then the minimum wage should also be at the 2005 level. Anything else is effectively arguing for an increase in the minimum wage relative to other things, which is madness in a recession when there are so many employed.

The question is, is reducing the minimum wage going to increase the number of people in employment? I don't think so, see my last post there. Also wages aren't the only things that have fallen - hours have also dropped, and reducing the minimum would only compound that problem.

Cutting even a euro off it would be the equivalent of knocking someone on €32k down to €28k in one swoop, sure many could live with that, but as you go down the wage scale, the real value of the wages increase to the person earning them. Thats why tax rates are highest on higher earners.

seamus

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If you believe that I've a bridge to sell you.

I didn't say that employers wouldn't try it. But legally they can't. Not my problem if workers don't know their rights. The information and support is freely available.

Its a pretty poor business model that is being crippled by a few extra euros a week. Lets say a hotel employs twenty people fulltime, they cut minimum wage by a euro, thats €800 a week saved. This is the equivalent to two rooms a night being filled in a cheap hotel. The benefit to the employer is utterly marginal. On the other hand, the cost to the employees is enormous, 12% of their wages gone in one swoop. And will the hotel hire two or three more people on the savings? Why would they? They are already fully staffed.

We can make up case studies to prove whatever we like. Let's not forget that's €800 a week (€41k/year) that the hotel can funnel into operating costs. €41k could easily be the difference between staying afloat and paying a mortgage rather than having to close down and stick 20 more people on the dole queues.
Even the cheapest hotels aren't packed to rafters 7 nights a week, so your argument is a little facetious.

No minimum wage is not the bogeyman when it comes to the cost of doing business in Ireland, but it's a problem. It means that you get €18k per year for doing the most basic jobs and this becomes a benchmark against which everyone else rates their own payscales.

Amhran Nua

seamus wrote: »

I didn't say that employers wouldn't try it. But legally they can't. Not my problem if workers don't know their rights. The information and support is freely available.

We both know that's not how it works. If you're on minimum wage you are classified as one of the most vulnerable in society, for good reason.

seamus wrote: »

We can make up case studies to prove whatever we like.

We can't, really. I picked an example of the kind of business that is beating the drum as hard as they can to get the minimum wage reduced in reality, along with the restauranteurs, two groups who are not well known for their great treatment of their employees.

seamus wrote: »

Let's not forget that's €800 a week (€41k/year) that the hotel can funnel into operating costs. €41k could easily be the difference between staying afloat and paying a mortgage rather than having to close down and stick 20 more people on the dole queues.

If they are that close to the wall they aren't going to be greatly helped out by cutting their already minimal wage bill even further. Two rooms a night.

seamus wrote: »

Even the cheapest hotels aren't packed to rafters 7 nights a week, so your argument is a little facetious.

I didn't say packed to the rafters. I said two rooms a night. There would probably be fifty to a hundred rooms with that kind of staffing, at least.

Spudmonkey

Amhran Nua wrote: »

We both know that's not how it works. If you're on minimum wage you are classified as one of the most vulnerable in society, for good reason.

AN, you said the same thing to me on a similar thread. Show me proof that everyone on minimum wage are the most vulnerable in society. As a student I worked on minimum wage, and believe me I was far from vulnerable or being in a position even remotely so.

Amhran Nua

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Show me proof that everyone on minimum wage are the most vulnerable in society. As a student I worked on minimum wage, and believe me I was far from vulnerable or being in a position even remotely so.

Seriously? As a third level student you had the support of your family and possibly a grant as well. That's a far cry from having to work at that level just to put a roof over your head and food on the table. Many of the people on minimum wage now are immigrants from Eastern Europe, or people who have recently become unemployed and found themselves unwilling or unable to receive welfare of some sort, and so would be extremely vulnerable to all sorts of problems, price hikes, tax/levy raises and bullying managers being just a few of them.

Spudmonkey

There was no grant involved and yes I was supported. So my point remains, prove to me that the majority of those on minimum wage are the most vulnerable in society and are struggling on the meagre amount of 8.65 an hour.

This was posted a few weeks back where those from eastern europe are still managing to survive in this country as well as sending a significant amount of money home. So they are A) better at managing their finances or not all on minimum wage.

If you can't prove this I will assume this vulnerable bit is just another soundbite used to protect yet another vested interest.

the_syco

gleep wrote: »

The minimum wage is a smaller problem than the tax bracket.Everyone should pay a certain level of tax on any weekly earnings over €100, maybe 10%. It's absurd to think we can raise enough taxes otherwise.

Does that include those getting more than €100 on welfare?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If you believe that I've a bridge to sell you.

If the min wage gets lowered, new starters get the min wage. The employer can try to get people to sign a new contract, but the employees can just refuse. If sacked, and new people are taken on with a short period for less money, the employees can sue their (now) ex-employer.

invinciblePRSTV

Even IBEC have recognised that slashing the M/W by an arbitrary figure is nonsense. Their proposal, to tax the M/W and adjust the rate for inflation is a far more sensible idea.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

There was no grant involved and yes I was supported. So my point remains, prove to me that the majority of those on minimum wage are the most vulnerable in society and are struggling on the meagre amount of 8.65 an hour.

A few years in college being supported by mammy & daddy whilst spending the m/w you earned on beer money doesn't give you any great insight into living on the m/w. There are 1000s of people in the retail sector raising families and paying bills, with no one to offer support like your parents. Try living on the m/w in the real world in these circumstances then come back to me.

Spudmonkey

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

A few years in college being supported by mammy & daddy whilst spending the m/w you earned on beer money doesn't give you any great insight into living on the m/w. There are 1000s of people in the retail sector raising families and paying bills, with no one to offer support like your parents. Try living on the m/w in the real world in these circumstances then come back to me.

Given that I don't actually drink I'm going to ignore that snide remark.

But seen as you want to assume that students spend most of their minimum wage on drink please quantify why their minimum wage should remain at the present rate. And rather than just saying 1000's raise families off the minimum wage, prove it. Otherwise I'll just have to assume the majority are students who like pissing it away :rolleyes:

CCCP

Min wage is just under 18K a year. (8.65 P/H X 40 hour week)

Standard Social welfare is just over 10 k per year (196 per week)

There is a BIG difference between 18 K and 10 K when living in a country that costs about 20k a year to live decently.

Sure if your living with your parents and don't pay rent then either is plenty, but to live alone on either wage is borderline poverty for someone on JA and its hand to mouth for someone on Min wage.

Again I'll say, I would gladly take a reduced payment of either if the cost of living became reasonable.

Its not the low wages and social welfare that need to be cut, its the obscenity of wages above 80K that needs to be cut.

silverlux

seamus wrote: »

Dropping minimum wage does not automatically mean that those who are currently being paid minimum wage will see their wages drop. They are still contractually entitled to €8.45 per hour and their employer cannot unilaterally cut their wages without their agreement.
In any case, those on the minimum wage have been immune from wage cuts up to this point, despite 3 years of recession. This has been crippling employers who have an artificial floor on their wages, with the result that more people have been laid off than might otherwise have been necessary if they were allowed to cut their wage. I'm sure anyone on minimum wage would rather lose 84c per hour than lose their job.

What a lower minimum wage will do is reduce the barrier for employers to hire new entry-level, low and unskilled workers. An employer at the moment might have enough work for two people @ €7 per hour, but current minimum wage levels mean that he can only pay one guy to do it because it would cost nearly €17 per hour to hire two. As a result, we have one person in employement, one person out of employment and a company struggling to meet its targets because it cannot hire staff to take on any increased workload.

A drop in minimum wage means that he can take on that second guy and now we have two people employed, the company is making more money because it has a greater output, and as a result the state can gather more income tax, CT and all the other knock-on taxes from the increased goods production.

BRAVO, GOOD SPEECH :):)

silverlux

CCCP wrote: »

Min wage is just under 18K a year. (8.65 P/H X 40 hour week)

Standard Social welfare is just over 10 k per year (196 per week)

There is a BIG difference between 18 K and 10 K when living in a country that costs about 20k a year to live decently.

Sure if your living with your parents and don't pay rent then either is plenty, but to live alone on either wage is borderline poverty for someone on JA and its hand to mouth for someone on Min wage.

Again I'll say, I would gladly take a reduced payment of either if the cost of living became reasonable.

Its not the low wages and social welfare that need to be cut, its the obscenity of wages above 80K that needs to be cut.

Same here mate. Cut the TV license and other stupid payments and I'm willing to take pay cut as the rest of the nation. :D:D

argosy2006

http://www.donedeal.ie/for-sale/plantmachinery/1719208