This is getting really tedious, but let me try one last time. If your business is totally dependent on paying your staff so poorly that a full time worker can't afford to get by.....well you have a sh*te business.
I'm not defending SF (I've already said they're economic incompetents), I'm purely pointing out that this argument has been tried since the concept of minimum wage was first introduced.
I absolutely believe the current minimum wage allows businesses to rip people off. I don't believe the nonsense about increasing minimum wage leading to economic apocalypse, as it hasn't done so in the past.
I'll also highlight that bringing the minimum wage up to a living wage isn't just some crackpot SF idea; it's supported by the current government! Leo has proposed bringing it in from next year.
As for the '22 Merc story, I suppose it was, 'based on a true story' rather than my own direct experience. As I don't get paid minimum wage, it wasn't true for me, though it is absolutely based on someone I know quite well; he drives a Merc (fella has no imagination in fairness, doesn't even think about anything except a silver S class!) which he upgrades every 3 years and the last time I was speaking with him, he was playing the poor mouth over the increase to minimum wage and the implementation of a requirement for employers to pay a ridiculously small amount of sick leave.
I'll repeat myself again just so everything is crystal clear; I'm certainly not criticising all small businesses, my point is very specifically about those who have employees working full time and don't pay them a liveable wage.
One in particular took a chance on me and started me in my current career path, which is a total departure from the area I trained in. They paid me very fairly, increased it regularly before I asked and if they had more room for growth, I'd still be there. Went off to the company I worked in after that with a handshake and the owner's blessing. I have very fond memories of some small businesses and poor experiences with some MNCs. I'm not trying to make it a Big Business Good, Small Business Bad argument, and if you've experienced that agenda from other posters, I'd appreciate if you didn't project that onto me.
Why is a Sinn Fein minister delaying publication of an independent report into the granting of roads contracts? Is there something to hide?
Did you not read the article, it says why in it, just in case you have difficulry finding your answer here it is
“It would not be appropriate to publish the report until after tender competitions in this area have been completed.”
That is the claim from the SF Minister but the Alliance are not accepting that. Do you believe everything that a Minister says, and take it as gospel?
Fair enough, you don't believe him, presumably you know why so stick it up, you'd hardly be spoofing would you
Chances of getting a comment from Connolly House…………………..nil.
So now do you expect the boy to ‘stick it up’
Not even the light escapes from that gaff
So you're saying he is spoofing, are ye one and the same, working in the same office?
Nope….
How do you know he's spoofing then
I did t say he was spoofing…….
What are you saying?
How would releasing the report affect a tender?
Sounds serious to me so why not release it?
The investigation, headed by QC Sarah Hannaford, was commissioned after a High Court case in which the Department for Infrastructure was found guilty of an “egregious breach of the principle of transparency... after engaging in a secret, bilateral and unrecorded process — the very antithesis of what transparency requires”.
I haven't the foggiest, how would I, unless like the other lad(s), who incidentally believe everything that an Alliance spokesperson says but believe nothing that a SF Minister says, I had some insider knowledge. Do you (like the other lad(s)) know. Will it all (whatever all is) not become obvious when the report is eventually released, and in the meantime all the useless bluster and spoofing could be avoided.
Better to remain.......
Well the question is when is the tender over?
Defend a SF Minister all you want, but I think it was brokenangel who asked the question as to how would releasing a report affect a tender process? This looks like a cover-up.
The other point is that SF claim to be the party of transparency, yet here they are, not releasing a report. At the very least hypocrisy, at the very worst a cover-up.
How can it be a cover-up if the release date is being delayed, SSJ, are you suggesting that the report will be doctored before it's release, or won't be released at all, what exactly are you saying, what has you so exercised. Is it of the utmost criticality to you that the report is released today, would it make a massive difference if it was released in a month's time. Me personally I couldn't give a toss when it's released, I won't be waiting with bated breath, truth be told I won't be distraught if it's never released or if a square metre of tarmac (is that what it's about - rhetorical question as I'm tiring) is never laid or laid in the wrong place.
Do we have a date when the report will be released? Will it ever see the light of day? How do you know it is only delayed?
Quite strange that you don't give a toss when a report is carried into a situation where a Department run by a SF Minister has been found by a court to be guilty of an "egregious breach of the principle of transparency... after engaging in a secret, bilateral and unrecorded process — the very antithesis of what transparency requires”.
It sounds like corruption, and a court has found this. It would appear to me that if the report is released, there is a possibility that contracts already awarded could be overturned because of the findings, so it looks like a SF Minister wants to protect those who received the contracts through a process that a court found to be the antithesis of transparency.
It sounds like, and I say it sounds like kicking it down the road and hope people forget. I could be wrong of course.
I am still struggling to see why this document would have an adverse affect on a tender process? Maybe the SF could explain why?
Read my posts.
I tried
Top man, now take two boiled sweets from the drum
How does it sound like kicking it down the road, it IS kicking it down the road, down the road until after tender competitions in this area have been completed, I presume tender competitions in this area will be completed (that is generally what happens to tender competitions, there is a beginning, a middle and an end), when they come to an end then he can (and should be) held to account on the publication of the report (I presume the Alliance and the northern political police here won't just forget about it). Does that sound reasonable, but more importantly logical.
This is a deeply depressing article. I hadn't realised that SF had managed to get a person elected as Lord Mayor who was in toilet when Robert McCartney was killed.
When you read articles like this, you despair for the future.
The biggest toilet in Belfast according to the PSNI.
Ah don't despair, it is largely a ceremonial role, have a look at some of her predecessors, we have had manys the Lord Mayor down here with similar political leanings to Ms Hargey like Tomás Mac Curtain and we survived, we have had some beauts in Dublin as well and we survived, look at who they elected (not selected) in London. Don't despair, you will hopefully encounter many other issues in your lifetime more worthy of despair than this one.
At this stage the only way some people will learn the truth about SF is if they re elected
The problem will be can we fix the country afterwards?
Ah we will be able to fix it, look at the quality we will have at our disposal, Varadkar, Martin, Donnelly, Murphy, O' Brien, Lowry,Troy and loads more
Yes we are lucky
Hopefully they will be able to pull it back together
