Why hasnt the croke park agreement being scrapped?

yrwhu8jxtni06a

The country is broke,cuts must be made,but this protected and never questioned or ignored by the politicians incase cost them an election,so why is this protected from cuts?..

20Cent

Because we are still a democracy. Kind of.

Why haven't the bondholders been burnt?

super_furry

Who’s going to scrap it? We’re in the middle of an election.

Gumbo

Ronan Cold Self-image wrote: »

The country is broke,cuts must be made,but this protected and never questioned or ignored by the politicians incase cost them an election,so why is this protected from cuts?..

why have the private sector developers that still earn 100k per year told that €100 per month is sufficient to cover multi million euro loans because after they pay for the kids private edecation, they havent enough left to furnish the loans they took out?

gigino

kceire wrote: »

why have the private sector developers that still earn 100k per year told that €100 per month is sufficient to cover multi million euro loans because after they pay for the kids private edecation, they havent enough left to furnish the loans they took out?

Your sentence does not make sense, but I guess you meant to ask " why have the private sector developers that still earn 100k per year been told that €100 per month is sufficient to ..."

Well, if you want to go off on a tangent ,fine

Who told them ?...who is letting the one or two indivuals you refer to ( out of the 1.8 million people in the private sector ) off the hook ?
Who is paying private developers 100k a year, and who sets the laws in the country, and do you think any laws are been broken, or do you think the public servants who make and administer the law should do a better job ? ( instead of maybe spending the day surfing the net and earning 100k themselves )?

If private developers do not break the law of the country, and do not commit any crime or break any law anywhere, should you criticise them for doing the best they can for themselves / their families ? Should the criticism not be more aimed at those who control / administer and manage the different systems in the country ....ie the top people in public service, inc the politicians ?

Gumbo

gigino wrote: »

Who is paying private developers 100k a year

Some of his income came from Red Quartz while some came from a management company in which he was involved.

gigino wrote: »

( instead of maybe spending the day surfing the net and earning 100k themselves )?

have you a source the PS staff can spend all day on the net, or is this more imaginary facts made up in your head?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gigino

kceire wrote: »

Some of his income came from Red Quartz while some came from a management company in which he was involved.

so it is not the taxpayer who is paying the 100k a year to this individual you mention, is it ?


"who sets the laws in the country, and do you think any laws are been broken, or do you think the public servants who make and administer the law should do a better job ? ( instead of maybe spending the day surfing the net and earning 100k themselves )?"

kceire wrote: »

have you a source the PS staff can spend all day on the net, or is this more imaginary facts made up in your head?

I am trying to find out - as you seem very familiar with this case - if any law has been broken, and if so who made and administered the law ? If the person who broke the law got away with it, then make the public servant responsible spends his / her time all day on the net, instead of doing their job ?

And what relevance has someone "earning 100k from Red Quartz while some came from a management company in which he was involved." got to the original posters question ?

Red Actor

gigino wrote: »

If private developers do not break the law of the country, and do not commit any crime or break any law anywhere, should you criticise them for doing the best they can for themselves / their families ? Should the criticism not be more aimed at those who control / administer and manage the different systems in the country ....ie the top people in public service, inc the politicians ?

Replace private developer with public servant, re-read the sentence and consider the laws being broken by well paid public servants.

My understanding of the CPA is that there are targets to met on savings. If those targets are not met then pay will be cut - if the savings are made then no pay cut. I'm interested in having a cheaper public service - I'm not bothered if this is done be shedding the fat or cutting the pay. The CPA means shed the fat or take a pay cut. Clever, the fat will be shed to save the pay rates and the pay rates of the 90% left will then be cut. Trying to cut pay will not imo lead to shedding fat as the empire builders will have taken a hit and will not want a second hit (or third or fourth).

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because we are constantly told that there is no money to pay for the public service yet billions for bondholders.

The CPA has brought about saving of 1.8 billion already.
Agree it probably will be scrapped though.

You might get to see police on horseback batton charging workers yet!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I would disagree about repercussions re bondholders and teachers. Anyway the PS has taken several cuts and reorganisation already. Time for the bondholders to have a haircut before taking more.

Take 10.8 billion out of the PS and we wouldn't really have a public service at all.

sarumite

20Cent wrote: »

I would disagree about repercussions re bondholders and teachers. Anyway the PS has taken several cuts and reorganisation already. Time for the bondholders to have a haircut before taking more.

Take 10.8 billion out of the PS and we wouldn't really have a public service at all.

I think we need to stop conflating deficits with debt. They are two different things. The bondholders have no bearing on the CPA.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

20Cent wrote: »

Take 10.8 billion out of the PS and we wouldn't really have a public service at all.

See this is nonsense. You could take 35% off teachers pay for example and they'd still be teaching the same number of kids. The only issue is that their pride would be hurt because they think they are worth what they get paid but not get paid what we can afford.

20Cent

sarumite wrote: »

I think we need to stop conflating deficits with debt. They are two different things. The bondholders have no bearing on the CPA.

If it wasn't for the bank debt then the deficit would not be such a big problem so they are related. If you expect your average PS worker to start taking more cuts then there should also be action taken regarding the bank, developer and bondholder issues. If not then you will have a massive number of people who have been disenfrachised with no stake in society.
When that happens teacher holidays or an hour a week etc will be the least of our problems. The problem with applying ideologies to everything is that they don't take the consiquences into account.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

See this is nonsense. You could take 35% off teachers pay for example and they'd still be teaching the same number of kids. The only issue is that their pride would be hurt because they think they are worth what they get paid but not get paid what we can afford.

If you took 35% off teachers pay there would be rioting in the streets, mass mortgage defaults and a massive fall in educational standards. Maybe you think thats a price worth paying.

sarumite

20Cent wrote: »

If it wasn't for the bank debt then the deficit would not be such a big problem so they are related. If you expect your average PS worker to start taking more cuts then there should also be action taken regarding the bank, developer and bondholder issues. If not then you will have a massive number of people who have been disenfrachised with no stake in society.
When that happens teacher holidays or an hour a week etc will be the least of our problems. The problem with applying ideologies to everything is that they don't take the consiquences into account.

True....but bondholders and national debt are not deficits. Any cuts to PS would still need to be made to get the deficit in order. I have said to you in another tread that I think both should be tackled. This particular thread is about the CPA (and by extension the deficit). I have no problem giving my opinion on bondholers in another thread.....though I do not see the point of derailing this one to make that opinion.

20Cent

sarumite wrote: »

True....but bondholders and national debt are not deficits. Any cuts to PS would still need to be made to get the deficit in order. I have said to you in another tread that I think both should be tackled. This particular thread is about the CPA (and by extension the deficit). I have no problem giving my opinion on bondholers in another thread.....though I do not see the point of derailing this one to make that opinion.

So you agree that they are related and that both should be tackled. Thats not derailing the thread at all. They should both be tackled together. If only one is addressed then I fear the civil unrest that will follow since such an unfair situation will result in massive civil unrest.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Burn the bondholders refers to a lot of different options from partial payment to debt for equity swaps. By unburdoning the country of this unsustainable debt then it will be easier to get credit from the bondmarket. Currently we are in a catch 22 situation which is causing a downward spiral we need to get out of this. Austerity has been shown to be making matters worse. Ideologues are enjoying the attack on the PS for ideological reasons. The damage caused may be worse than "burning the bondholders.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sarumite

20Cent wrote: »

So you agree that they are related and that both should be tackled. Thats not derailing the thread at all. They should both be tackled together. If only one is addressed then I fear the civil unrest that will follow since such an unfair situation will result in massive civil unrest.

No.. both need to be tackled, however Debt is not deficit. This thread is about the CPA. The fate of bondholders has no bearing on the CPA and the CPA has no bearing on the fate of bondholders. The two are separate issues.

fliball123

20Cent wrote: »

If you took 35% off teachers pay there would be rioting in the streets, mass mortgage defaults and a massive fall in educational standards. Maybe you think thats a price worth paying.

we cant afford it simple as no point moaning

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you quote me then do it properly I said would not be such a big problem.
Your donegalfella right?

20Cent

fliball123 wrote: »

we cant afford it simple as no point moaning

Keep the head down, doff your cap.

fliball123

20Cent wrote: »

Keep the head down, doff your cap.

Thats more like it...I hope you keep your sense of humour come the end of the year 20cent..seriously there will be a definate cut with ps wage...and I do feel sorry the majority of hard working ps workers but we just have not got the money any more

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Bondholders are not one homogenous group. The buyers come from many sources. They aren't lending to us because it is clear that default is inevitable. Several economists have expressed amazement that Ireland seems to insist on paying these guys who gambled and lost. If this debt is removed it will make Ireland a more attractive proposition.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You will have more mortgage defaults for a start, that means more bank trouble down the line which will affect everyone. God help anyone with a special needs child or with kids being educated in a porta cabin. A huge reduction in the money spent in the country will affect every business and continue the spiral of depressing the economy.


Bit rich a guy who makes a living off capital mocking people who actually go out and contribute to society.

You seem to always avoid the "are you donegalfella" question seen it asked a few times. Is it because donegalfella was shown up to be a loon and a hypocrite in previous threads?

ixoy

20Cent wrote: »

If you took 35% off teachers pay there would be rioting in the streets, mass mortgage defaults and a massive fall in educational standards. Maybe you think thats a price worth paying.

Why would there be a massive reduction in standards? How is that linked to pay? Or would teachers just bother 35% less?

WalterMitty

Croke Park deal is very likely to be redundant in next 6-12 months. No party wants to tear it up yet as theres an election and the unions have promised to deliver big savings by mid year but like all the previous time this wont succeed for numerous reasons. The imf/eu in their quarterly reviews will order us to make pay bill savings as the union savings wont be made and wont be enough . The poor growth rates will mean less tax and more welfare costs and therefor ethe need for even greater cuts in spending . IMF came into latvia and large pay cuts for public sector only came in after government failed to meet imf targets after several months.

20Cent

ixoy wrote: »

Why would there be a massive reduction in standards? How is that linked to pay? Or would teachers just bother 35% less?

How do you think a 35% paycut would affect moral?
Say teachers agreed to this cut.
They then see photo's of developers who owe tens of millions flying to the horseraces in private helicopters. They lose their home and see levies going out of their paychecks going to the banks that took their home. They don't have access to decent health or education services.
What would a person in that situation do?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichardAnd

My own opinion of the CP deal is that it was something of a lemon, that is to say, I believe it was made to be broken. Think about it, it promises no pay cuts and no redunancies on the promise that paying the same amount of people the same amount of money will make significant savings. I think not.

Remember, we don't know what went on in that meeting room. I'm not one for conspiracies but neither the union leaders nor the people they were dealing with can really be trusted. When that deal was signed, the first signs that the IMF/ECB were on the way were appearing in economic articles. So is it a wild suggestion to postulate that both sides simply worked out a moot treaty to buy time? Once again, I think not.

Fromt he government point of view, they put off the inevitable for a while and stemed "industrial action" by shutting up the PS workers. The union bosses could say they got their members a good deal and go back to their jobs happy.

And the best part in this, suited to both sides, is that now when the CP deal is torn up and the cuts made, the "blame the IMF" card can be played by both. Thus, the IMF will be blamed for the a mess entirely of our own making. God help us.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's your problem. Apply ideology to every situation. The fallout doesn't matter so long as you are ok. Explains why "libertarianism" has never taken off anywhere in the world ever.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ixoy

20Cent wrote: »

How do you think a 35% paycut would affect moral?

By the rationale above, anyone who receives a cut should work proportionally less? We're all paying to some extent or another through increased taxation and some have received much more substational cuts (and may not have even enjoyed a premium that some PS workers have had). They aren't all putting in less productivity as a result - some have to work even harder now to stay afloat. It's annoying/infuriating but hardly unique to one cache of worker.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No point debating with a libertarian.
Its like debating religion with a Klingon or Jedi.
Pointless.

Gumbo

id take a 35% cut tomorrow, but it would mean i would default on my mortgage, simple as. i'll just pass my mortgage on to the tax payer then.

20Cent

ixoy wrote: »

By the rationale above, anyone who receives a cut should work proportionally less? We're all paying to some extent or another through increased taxation and some have received much more substational cuts (and may not have even enjoyed a premium that some PS workers have had). They aren't all putting in less productivity as a result - some have to work even harder now to stay afloat. It's annoying/infuriating but hardly unique to one cache of worker.

I agree, the point I'm trying to make is that if we cut the crap out of the PS without simultaneously seeing action taken against the other sections of society who caused most of the problems and are getting off scott free then I fail to see why anyone would feel part of this society. The level of inequality will cause an Egypt type situation.

danbohan

20Cent wrote: »

No point debating with a libertarian.
Its like debating religion with a Klingon or Jedi.
Pointless.

mind you there are those of us that have a similar opinion of debating anything with public /civil servants

MagicSean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Speaking as one of those groups I am already struggling. I have had a massive cut to my pay already.

ardmacha

Why would there be a massive reduction in standards? How is that linked to pay? Or would teachers just bother 35% less?

This type of cut could only push morale to rock bottom. There is considerable evidence that teacher enthusiasm and morale has a significant effect on education outcomes. Any group targeted for political reasons for pay reductions beyond pay reductions generally in the economy would reasonably object. Teachers would be perfectly aware that any pay differentials between the PS and the private sector were only half for graduates as for non-graduates, yet the graduate grades have had bigger cuts. They would also be perfectly aware that Ireland was spending a low proportion of GDP on education by international standards. If Ireland has a budget deficit when compared to other countries then it is not because of overspending on education, as they never overspent. There seems to an unwillingness to identify where exactly public expenditure is out of line with other places, or where exactly it increased excessively in the boom, an unwillingness by the FF government resulting from a desire to protect particular people and an unwillingness on this forum as it would inhibit ranting.

It is easy to say cut PS salaries to ribbons so that I won't have to cramp my lifestyle by having to pay more tax. But you children will be going to schools with demoralised staff and your granny will be cared for by demoralised health workers.

There is a big problem with the deficit, but it is a problem for all citizens not just the decreasing number who happen to work for the government.

problemchimp

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

See this is nonsense. You could take 35% off teachers pay for example and they'd still be teaching the same number of kids. The only issue is that their pride would be hurt because they think they are worth what they get paid but not get paid what we can afford.

So take 35% from teachers pay on top of previous cuts just like that? They will default on their mortgage and sink the banks even more which means we, the taxpayer will have to give a bigger bailout to the banks. Doesn't make sense. On one hand I hear politicians and commentaters telling us we need a smart educated economy and yet they want to tear the heart out of our education system. Can't have it both ways.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

problemchimp

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The cost of living is way lower in France and their tax is put to much better use, into proper health and education.

ardmacha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This does not relate to enthusiasm. It relates to limitations in the selection and training of teachers (as you yourself have said) and in the motivation of students, which partly comes from society.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The countries where teachers earn less do not spend less on education. If you are proposing to introduce Finnish or French style class sizes, classroom assistance, training etc. as well as Finnish salaries then you may have a case. But you are not, you want the salary but not the other things that are found in successful systems.

French teachers do pay higher taxes, along with everyone else in France. It is an unwillingness to have French levels of tax while expecting French level of service that has the country the way it is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tommy57

F**K it why don't we all give up our jobs and we can all bitch together. It seems people with jobs should just take paycuts "because they work and we don't". Great attitude i'm signing on tommorow.

ardmacha

Pay is not only a matter of international comparison, it is also relative to prices and salaries in the Irish economy. Quite simply, if Irish people earn a particular salary level and pay taxes based on that level then those taxes, in a rational tax system, should be capable of supporting a public sector paid comparable salaries.

Alas, exactly the same thing could be said of Irish teachers.

I don't see how it could.

but when it comes to actually educating, many of them clearly could not be bothered—as our dismal recent PISA results illustrate.

No doubt, though, you'll cut the ones who can bothered as much as those who are not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.