Socialist Party/ULA Betrayal of the low paid PS...

Silvio.Dante

I am a Clerical Officer in the Civil Service and am an active member of the CPSU.

Like many low paid workers in my position I have in general supported my union's stance on actively protecting my T & C's of employment. All the while seeming to receive support from the like of The Socialist Party along the way.

In fact our union has a vocal SP infiltration with a Party member being one of the union treasurers and the An Post branch being an SP surrogate. I have no real problem with any of the above as in all instances they have been appointed fairly and in accordance with union rules.

However their stance on advocating a No vote baffles me. Like it or not 'we are where we are'. Voting Yes confirms our wages being paid. Voting No brings nothing but uncertainty, instability and another Greece on the horizon.

How voting No is better for me as a Clerical Officer is beyond rational thinking.

It tells me that the ULA/SP have another, bigger, agenda. My own personal view is that they want chaos on the streets. 'Social Revolution' if you like and will go to any lengths to get their goal. If that means stabbing Civil Servants in the back to get it then so be it.

I expect betrayal from our political elites. Now its just another let down, this time from the wolves in sheeps clothing within our own union...

darkman2

Well put OP and make sure you spread that message to other Union members if you can. These people are nuts.


If you don't believe me do a google search for "Joe Higgins" and "Liverpool" and see what happened to Liverpool council workers in the 80's when the socialists got most of the seats. To cut a long story short as soon as they got in they began hiring an extra 30,000 people to the council and built loads of schools and libraries and things. Within one year they ran out of money and tried to threaten Westminster to make up the difference. They didn't and the council went bankrupt and alot of those workers were sacked.

It's the same lunacy as this crowd here. Only here it's even more deadly because we are a sovereign state. We have no backup if people like this got near the balance of power.

Joe Higgins is crazy. I have no qualms saying that. He is. And so are his associates/comrades. Anybody who takes the SP seriously has a screw loose or is just not thinking hard enough. And you are absolutely right - the only thing Boyd Barrett and the rest of them want is social instability. Their politics are dangerous.

I'm no Sinn Féin supporter but even i'd take them any day of the week ahead of the SP/ULA. They seem very sane in comparison. Public sector workers, IMO, are not served well by infiltration from that lot because their agenda is to foster discontent.

woodoo

The socialist party and the ULA get very little votes for a reason. People don't put credence in their policies.

BOHtox

I have to laugh at people like Richard Boyd Barret. When asked how he would close the 10 billion deficit in 2014, he would introduce a load of tax that would drive any wealth out of the country and this amounted to 5 billion. He then rounded this figure up to 10 billion and continued advocating a no vote. The whole far left are a bunch of chancers!

Jaysoose

You are not low paid you are paid according to the skills needed and qualifications that are relevant to your position.

Most people would argue you are overpaid for the job you do.

UDAWINNER

Isn't the CPSU advocating a no vote.
Could swear i read this exact thread on politics.ie.

washman3

So OP if you vote yes, what exactly will you be voting for?? have the government told you what?? and if so, do you believe them?

Silvio.Dante

UDAWINNER wrote: »

Isn't the CPSU advocating a no vote.

Correct...

Silvio.Dante

washman3 wrote: »

So OP if you vote yes, what exactly will you be voting for?? have the government told you what?? and if so, do you believe them?

Yes.

Voting No brings a storm of chaos, uncertainty and despair. Just what the Socialist Party really wants...

darkman2

Well the "no" side can talk all the nonsense they like but this is the be all and end all.

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GIGB9YR:IND


That is our sovereign borrowing interest rate on our benchmark bond. We are trying to return to the market so we don't have to abide by the strict conditions laid down by the lender of last resort and we can be sovereign again. To do that our yields have to be below 5%. You can see how close we are. We are way ahead of the other bailout countries. Portugal is twice our yield for example. They are already condemed to a new bailout.

The reason why a "No" vote will guarantee another bailout and harsher conditions and austerity is that the minute the market gets word of the vote that yield will rocket again to levels that we will not be able to contain prior to the end of the current bailout. It's as simple as that.

This is the real world not the world of make believe from the "No" side. You want to take that risk with your future, with your children's future? That graph in that link is all that matters if we want to regain economic independence.

That's it. There is nothing to argue about. Be stupid and vote "No" if you like but you will pay the price. The world is not a land of milk and honey. We don't have the room to fúck around like in previous treaties.

I thought the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (registered owners of the People Before Profit brand) hated each other?

The Socialist Party is a Trotskyist party affiliated to the Committee for a Workers' International. The Socialist Workers Party is a Trotskyist party affiliated to the International Socialist Tendency.

I haven't the faintest idea what the difference between them is, apart from the fact that the Socialist Party uses its own name on election posters instead of a brand name. I haven't a clue why they aren't one Socialist party and affiliated to one international Socialist grouping.

All sounds a bit People's Front of Judea, if you ask me. :rolleyes:

thecommietommy

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I am a Clerical Officer in the Civil Service and am an active member of the CPSU.

Like many low paid workers in my position I have in general supported my union's stance on actively protecting my T & C's of employment. All the while seeming to receive support from the like of The Socialist Party along the way.

In fact our union has a vocal SP infiltration with a Party member being one of the union treasurers and the An Post branch being an SP surrogate. I have no real problem with any of the above as in all instances they have been appointed fairly and in accordance with union rules.

However their stance on advocating a No vote baffles me. Like it or not 'we are where we are'. Voting Yes confirms our wages being paid. Voting No brings nothing but uncertainty, instability and another Greece on the horizon.

How voting No is better for me as a Clerical Officer is beyond rational thinking.

It tells me that the ULA/SP have another, bigger, agenda. My own personal view is that they want chaos on the streets. 'Social Revolution' if you like and will go to any lengths to get their goal. If that means stabbing Civil Servants in the back to get it then so be it.

I expect betrayal from our political elites. Now its just another let down, this time from the wolves in sheeps clothing within our own union...

Another party political broadcast on behalf of FG/Labour/FF :rolleyes:

RandomName2

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Voting No brings a storm of chaos, uncertainty and despair.

washman3

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Yes.

Voting No brings a storm of chaos, uncertainty and despair. Just what the Socialist Party really wants...

When i read your original post i was almost fooled for a moment.
But well done,nice try,was fairly convincing. A lower ranking public servant beginning to "see through" the left's arguement.
As pointed out by another poster, "another party political broadcast"
Nothing more.

Silvio.Dante

thecommietommy wrote: »

Another party political broadcast on behalf of FG/Labour/FF :rolleyes:

And common sense, low paid Public Servants...

washman3

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

And common sense, low paid Public Servants...

Galwayguy35

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I am a Clerical Officer in the Civil Service and am an active member of the CPSU.

Like many low paid workers in my position I have in general supported my union's stance on actively protecting my T & C's of employment. All the while seeming to receive support from the like of The Socialist Party along the way.

In fact our union has a vocal SP infiltration with a Party member being one of the union treasurers and the An Post branch being an SP surrogate. I have no real problem with any of the above as in all instances they have been appointed fairly and in accordance with union rules.

However their stance on advocating a No vote baffles me. Like it or not 'we are where we are'. Voting Yes confirms our wages being paid. Voting No brings nothing but uncertainty, instability and another Greece on the horizon.

How voting No is better for me as a Clerical Officer is beyond rational thinking.

It tells me that the ULA/SP have another, bigger, agenda. My own personal view is that they want chaos on the streets. 'Social Revolution' if you like and will go to any lengths to get their goal. If that means stabbing Civil Servants in the back to get it then so be it.

I expect betrayal from our political elites. Now its just another let down, this time from the wolves in sheeps clothing within our own union...

You need look no further than the debate on TV3 when Higgins was asked straight out where the money was to come from if we vote no, he ignored the question.

PeadarCo

thecommietommy wrote: »

Another party political broadcast on behalf of FG/Labour/FF :rolleyes:

This the problem with the no side attack the person and ignore the arguement put forward. What is wrong with the OP's comments.

Can anybody on the no side explain where they expect to get the money to run the country and make up the gap between spending and tax's without any form of austerity? Given that one reason Fianna Fail and the banks got away with what they did was use the money from the bubble to increase wages,social welfare etc. to unsustainable levels.

Also how does annoying our main trading partners do anything for a country that is relying on a successful resolution to the current crisis to reduce the amount of cuts required?

Head The Wall

The so called low paid PS worker has a starting wage 15% higher than I was getting paid as an extrusion operator in one of the hi tech medical device companies that is keeping the Irish economy ticking over. I was manufacturing life saving equipment and the low paid PS worker does a bit of paper shuffling for more money, there's something wrong somewhere.

The OP has stated around a year ago that he was earning around 25k for photocopying etc and his gross pay at the time was greater than when he started because of increments even after the paycut and pension levy.

PS workers are not lower paid, in fact they are overpaid for what the majority of them do. That is what is wrong with the op's post.

Silvio.Dante

Head The Wall wrote: »

The so called low paid PS worker has a starting wage 15% higher than I was getting paid as an extrusion operator in one of the hi tech medical device companies that is keeping the Irish economy ticking over. I was manufacturing life saving equipment and the low paid PS worker does a bit of paper shuffling for more money, there's something wrong somewhere.

The OP has stated around a year ago that he was earning around 25k for photocopying etc and his gross pay at the time was greater than when he started because of increments even after the paycut and pension levy.

PS workers are not lower paid, in fact they are overpaid for what the majority of them do. That is what is wrong with the op's post.

I'm on less money Nett than when I started despite coming up to my 5th increment...

Dirk Gently

Must be nice to get to vote on ring-fencing your wages.

Silvio.Dante

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Must be nice to get to vote on ring-fencing your wages.

A No vote will guarantee our wages being savaged, Greece style...

washman3

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

A No vote will guarantee our wages being savaged, Greece style...

A vote either way will see your wages savaged, EU style.
The party is over,get over it.
FYI the Fiscal Compact Treaty is, and has been,dead in the water for many weeks now. The result either way is immaterial. Total waste of money.
Has anybody told you that.?

Dirk Gently

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

A No vote will guarantee our wages being savaged, Greece style...

Mine already were, didn't get a vote on it either.

Silvio.Dante

washman3 wrote: »

A vote either way will see your wages savaged, EU style.
The party is over,get over it.
FYI the Fiscal Compact Treaty is, and has been,dead in the water for many weeks now. The result either way is immaterial. Total waste of money.
Has anybody told you that.?

there are difficult times ahead after aYes vote byt they will be well flagged and we will have time to fight each battle accordingly.

A No vote will leave Public Servants up the creek without a paddle.

I know which scenario I prefer...

Head The Wall

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'm on less money Nett than when I started despite coming up to my 5th increment...

So what, PS don't mind using gross wage levels to compare against the private sector but try and use net when it suits ye. Make up your minds, nobody with a brain uses their net wages for comparisons.

Why don't you deal with the rest of the details in my post

washman3

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

there are difficult times ahead after aYes vote byt they will be well flagged and we will have time to fight each battle accordingly.

A No vote will leave Public Servants up the creek without a paddle.

I know which scenario I prefer...

Think we should change the thread title to:
The European Fiscal Compact Treaty explained. (by somebody who is voting yes);)

Silvio.Dante

Head The Wall wrote: »

So what, PS don't mind using gross wage levels to compare against the private sector but try and use net when it suits ye. Make up your minds, nobody with a brain uses their net wages for comparisons.

Why don't you deal with the rest of the details in my post

I'm only stating facts dude.

The rest of your post went on about you being paid peanuts. A case for getting union recognition if I ever saw it...:)

RandomName2

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You need look no further than the debate on TV3 when Higgins was asked straight out where the money was to come from if we vote no, he ignored the question.

From taxes.

Exactly the same place that it will come from if we vote yes.

Jaysus. :pac:

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

A No vote will guarantee our wages being savaged, Greece style...

This is the Fiscal Compact Treaty and has nothing to do with the Croke Park agreement (unfortunately)

Head The Wall

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'm only stating facts dude.

The rest of your post went on about you being paid peanuts. A case for getting union recognition if I ever saw it...:)

I wasn't stating that actually, but you wouldn't see that as you think you are worth what you get paid. Maybe you should transfer your clerical officer skills to the private sector and see what salary you would get. That would clarify to you that lower paid PS staff are actually overpaid

Silvio.Dante

Head The Wall wrote: »

I wasn't stating that actually, but you wouldn't see that as you think you are worth what you get paid. Maybe you should transfer your clerical officer skills to the private sector and see what salary you would get. That would clarify to you that lower paid PS staff are actually overpaid

So in essence you want everyone to be on peanuts with shi'ite T & C's of employment.

no thanks...

sarumite

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'm on less money Nett than when I started despite coming up to my 5th increment...

Do you consider yourself 'underpaid' or do you consider that you are paid appropriately for your work?

I ask as someone could be overpaid and on 'low' pay or underpaid and on 'high' pay depending on the position and job they are doing.

Silvio.Dante

sarumite wrote: »

Do you consider yourself 'underpaid' or do you consider that you are paid appropriately for your work?

I ask as someone could be overpaid and on 'low' pay or underpaid and on 'high' pay depending on the position and job they are doing.

Definitely underpaid given my workload and contribution I make...

sarumite

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Definitely underpaid given my workload and contribution I make...

Thats fair enough. Do you mind if I ask what you are benchmarking your renumeration against to conclude that you are underpaid?

Silvio.Dante

sarumite wrote: »

Thats fair enough. Do you mind if I ask what you are benchmarking your renumeration against to conclude that you are underpaid?

I have huge responsibility for the money I earn. I should be an EO...

Richard Hillman

I dont think the socialist party/people before profits party's have any interest in low paid workers. They are only interested in the unemployed and students.

thecommietommy

Voting yes means cutting the deficit to 0.5% and reducing debts to 60% of GDP. If you think that won't involve pay cuts and job losses in the public sector than you are off your head.

washman3

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I dont think the socialist party/people before profits party's have any interest in low paid workers. They are only interested in the unemployed and students.

What a foolish and shameful comment. why would they be interested in unemployed and students only?? its common knowledge that a only a minority of unemployed actually vote,while successive governments in this country have always ensured that elections are held on a Thursday making it extremely difficult for most students.
As for low paid workers,i doubt if you would have little,if any knowledge of same,judging by your username.

sarumite

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I have huge responsibility for the money I earn. I should be an EO...

To me at least it sounds like you aren't underpaid, though you are overworked. If you are being employed to do a CO's job (and I seem to recall in a older thread you mentioned you were a CO) but you are in fact doing the job of an EO then it would appear the problem is with your current role and not necessarily your remuneration for the role you are supposed to be fulfilling
On edit: oops, you mentioned in the op that you are a CO.

green123

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

A No vote will guarantee our wages being savaged, Greece style...

This is exactly what we need to happen.

This is a great reason to vote no.

I urge everybody to vote no for this reason.

Pedant

The EU Fiscal Compact makes it the prerogative of government to have their national budgets in balance or in surplus. I would normally agree with such a measure as I believe in fiscal discipline. In the long run, I would support it.

However, Ireland is in a massive amount of debt, much of which is nationalized bank-debt and debt incurred from reckless gambling. It is unfortunate, therefore, that due to current circumstances that I must reject my support for the treaty.

Why should the taxpayers have to suffer the penalty of austerity (and I'm talking tax increases not spending cuts) to pay debt most of which they did not accumulate? This is a matter of principle. Those who owe the debt should pay it, not those who don't.

If it had been the case that some of the toxic banks had not been nationalized, I would support the treaty.

To the point of this thread, I am no fan of the socialist party, trade unionism or socialism in general, however I support their general stance on this treaty.

I don't intend for my comments to develop into a "private vs. public" debate or an ideological battle, but we need to look at the wider picture. We have to look at what this treaty will lead to.

I don't like the general notion going about these boards that the "no" side are all crazy leftists/socialists who don't understand where public money comes from. This is not the case. Personally, it baffles me that the left would vote "no" on the treaty because it will result in them not being able to access credit to pay for the public services they so much defend. Bit nonsensical to me, though they're going to incur losses anyway, doesn't matter if they vote "no" or "yes".

There are other groups, however, who are against the treaty - libertarians and the like, I would assume. Some of us on the "no" side (like me) are for cuts in public spending but are against the treaty because it will inevitably result in further tax increases to pay off the debt.

I believe that the country needs a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts, not a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Tax cuts will help stimulate the economy by making it easier for businesses to flex their muscles, expand and create new jobs. Spending cuts are obviously needed to complement the tax cuts and to prevent further deficit due to loss of revenue. However, it may be argued that tax cuts may actually marginally increase revenue because less people would be making the effort to avoid lower taxes.

Any public sector worker on this thread can disagree with me all they want, but this is my firm ideological stance, unfortunately I think it could get quite off-topic to debate ideologies. However, as far as I see it, the average PS worker will inevitably be hit in some way, shape or form anyway, it doesn't matter if they decide to vote "yes" or "no".

As for paying off the debt, to simple put it, I don't believe that those taxpayers who acted responsibly, and didn't contribute to that massive amount of debt, should have to carry the burden. So really, it's up to those who got into debt to pay the debt. If they can't pay the debt, that's their problem. Will this lead to defaults? Probably, but that's the price when you act irresponsibly. Tough. By the way, I don't believe in further bailouts either.

Jolly Red Giant

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So in essence you want everyone to be on peanuts with shi'ite T & C's of employment.

no thanks...

Silvio - you really must have little work to do given the different internet forums where you have been peddling your nonsense.

And have you told people on here that you are hosting a FF avatar over on p.ie?

washman3

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Silvio - you really must have little work to do given the different internet forums where you have been peddling your nonsense.

And have you told people on here that you are hosting a FF avatar over on p.ie?

His cover was blown on his second post here.!!
Almost fooled me with the original post though.:o
Have to admire him for that.:)

sarumite

Pedant wrote: »

If it had been the case that some of the toxic banks had not been nationalized, I would support the treaty.

Had it they not been nationalized, we still would have had a massive deficit, a increasing debt burdern and a requirement for self imposed austerity. Lets not forget that the majority of the bailout money was not related to the banks, but to running the country. While its nice to blame the banks for all of our troubles, its unfortunately not true especially in relation to getting our deficit in order.

I am not suggesting anyone vote yes or no (personally I will be voting yes) but if you are going to vote no at least do it for logical reasons based on facts.

Count Dooku

RandomName2 wrote: »

or

RandomName2

Count Dooku wrote: »

or

Hold on... is that literally A Fiscal Compact poster above a Lisbon 2 poster? :eek:

Uncorruptable

BOHtox wrote: »

The whole far left are a bunch of chancers!

This has to be entered into the boards.ie definition of irony,

What would you call the entire banking 'fraternity'/political yes men we have in this country & worldwide?

Chancers, that have pulled the biggest stroke in history, they have successfully broken down the seperation between Public & Private sectors, where we are all now sources of income for the international private financiers.

Governments now decide policy based on the demands of the private financiers interests & have agreed to socialise private debt on threat of blackmail they will not be supported with loans unless the population cover the losses of a few.

I certainly wont be voting yes to continue supporting this scam/charade perpetrated by charlatans and chancers.

Fussgangerzone

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (registered owners of the People Before Profit brand) hated each other?

The Socialist Party is a Trotskyist party affiliated to the Committee for a Workers' International. The Socialist Workers Party is a Trotskyist party affiliated to the International Socialist Tendency.

I haven't the faintest idea what the difference between them is, apart from the fact that the Socialist Party uses its own name on election posters instead of a brand name. I haven't a clue why they aren't one Socialist party and affiliated to one international Socialist grouping.

All sounds a bit People's Front of Judea, if you ask me. :rolleyes:

There's a bunch of differences, but if look at their repectiv einternational affiliations, that shows the main ideological differences.

The SP are affiliated to the CWI
The SWP are affiliated to the ISI
These affiliations represent stances on various key issues around socialism rather than a rigid dogma or an external hierarchy.

On a more day-to-day basis, their is a difference of approach between the two. For example, the SWP like to rebrand (People Before Profit, though there are other people in that who aren't SWP) and are worried about alienating people with the word socialist. The Socialist Party on the other hand, are up front about it, the approach there being that it's better to be up-front, if we ever expect to find common cause.

Speaking of common cause, both parties are now part of the United Left Alliance, so your Life of Brian reference is out of date.