Minimum wage €1.84?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can anyone post a link to this ''lisbon'' treaty, as I know sweet fúck all about it, and I intend to vote this time around, so better know wtf I'm doing.

There's no point reading it. Unless you vote YES your vote won't count.

.

TriciaDelicia wrote: »

How is it anti-Lisbon?

on another note was talking to the monster in-law yesterday so she's saying "I voted yes the last time, but this time I'm voting no because they didn't listen to me last time" :eek:I'm speechless suppressing the urge to bang her head off somethingquote]

Shes right she voted once and now they don accept her decision and want her to vote again, as i said i know so many people that voted Yes last time who will now vote no because of this.

procure11

TheDublinMan wrote: »

Driving up the Ballymun Road yesterday, posters everywhere stating that if Lisbon is passed minimum wage will be dropped to €1.84!!!!!!

Come on do you expect me to believe this!

What do all the fine people of After Hours think of this.

Please no long-winded drivel laden replies from tinfoil hat lovers.

OP...I have seen the adverts myself.While I think it is just scare-mongering but the NO campaigners are not alone on this especially when you consider statements from the Yes side about how Ireland would no longer be at the heart of Europe ( whatever that means) and how ungrateful we would be to vote No,if that was the case why let us vote in the first place if the only outcome they want is yes.

As regards the view that boards are pro-lisbon and want a Yes vote...( I doubt it)..but if that is true then that the various polls on boards would certainly be bad news!

I intend to cast my vote and I am making an informed decision to vote No to the treaty come October.

marco_polo

skelliser wrote: »

they are coir posters.
the 1.84 is the average wage of the ascension states that joined a few years ago i.e. the eastern block countries.
Now a few years ago there was this court case called lavel, there has since been similiar ones. It was between workers and a company. The company wanted to bring in foreign workers and pay them the wage they where earning at home ie. this basically undermined the local employees wages.
The court sided with the company saying it was ok to do so cause it encouraged competition in the market.
This is where the adage "race to the bottom comes from"

now coir are saying/musing/arguing that this could happen here i.e. a company can bring in foreign workers say from eastern europe and pay them 1.84 an hour. Thus undermining our wage here.

the european court of justice ruled on this. As regards lisbon its pretty technical if this could happen, im not fully sure.

but thats the basic gist.

i dont support coir

In fact the issue was that they could get away with paying the Swedish minimum wage rather than the rates as set out under local collective bargaining agreements as these were deemed not legally binding, not the Latvian minimum wage.

In essence the Swedish government screwed up the transposing of the EU Posting of Workers Directive into law.

One of the things our Unions want is for our Governement to re-transpose our law to tighten it up, and to make all collective agreements legallly binding. Such agreements are currently only the case if these are those lodged with the Labour court, such as is the case with all construction agreements.

Biggins

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Yeah that sounds about right, we are bad enough here in Ireland at the moment with 430,000 Irish people on the dole and now they want to further undermind Irish workers wages:mad:. The same way as the Nice treaty where they told us that 20,000 at most Eastern European workers would come to Ireland, more like 400,000, that was okay when we had Jobs but now they want to allow companies employ people at there home country rates.

Yep, and the docile of Ireland will let the door be open for it to happen. The opposition can himm and haw all they want, attempting to make up excuses but the EU court ruling stands and as such is applicable in any subsequent state!

thomond2006 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Can I help you?

j1smithy

Dankoozy wrote: »

still this business with having every referendum twice is ridiculous. it would be worth voting no just to see Biffo try to run it a 3rd time. besides, it's only a ****ing lisbon treaty, i'm sure the Eurocrats will come up with some other treaty if they can't get this one past

What an annoying word, why do people continue to use it???

Dankoozy

j1smithy wrote: »

What an annoying word, why do people continue to use it???

what should I call them instead? European Overloards, dickwads?

j1smithy wrote: »

What an annoying word, why do people continue to use it???

What word? Do you mean "NO"?

.

Ghost Train

three options

vote yes
vote no
or don't vote.... but all the kittens will die

TheDublinMan wrote: »

Driving up the Ballymun Road yesterday, posters everywhere stating that if Lisbon is passed minimum wage will be dropped to €1.84!!!!!!

Come on do you expect me to believe this!

Saw these Cóir posters around Phibsboro in the past week. Unbelievable that these people make such unsupported claims to us. Talk about offensive to our collective intelligence.

Where are their faces? Richard Greene apparently is the head guy of this shady organisation. Who is he? Any names and backgrounds of the other people? "Youth Defence" is a bit vague.

Pathetic tactics at any rate.

[Deleted User]

This Lisbon thing, is curious.

The government should jet us all over there and let us check the place out,
I have never been there, and I would hate to say "NO" when I don't know what I am talking about, just like now.

I'm I making "Sense"?

In contrast to these patronising Cóir scumbags, Anthony Coughlan for the 'No' side made a strong case this evening that Lisbon was leading to a large transfer of sovereignty from the smaller EU states to the larger ones.

As somebody who will vote 'Yes' this time, that does concern me greatly.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Where are their faces? Richard Greene apparently is the head guy of this shady organisation. Who is he? Any names and backgrounds of the other people? "Youth Defence" is a bit vague.

Pathetic tactics at any rate.

No Pathetic tactics is when the people vote no and they are not respected and forced to vote again.

utick

Ghost Train wrote: »

three options

vote yes
vote no
or don't vote.... but all the kittens will die

3 options

vote yes
vote no ( must explain your reason for voting no, in 50 words or more for vote to be valid)

or dont vote

utick wrote: »

3 options

vote no ( must explain your reason for voting no, in 50 words or more for vote to be valid)

Who the hell do you think you are. People dont have to explain why they will vote no.

marco_polo

Rebelheart wrote: »

In contrast to these patronising Cóir scumbags, Anthony Coughlan for the 'No' side made a strong case this evening that Lisbon was leading to a large transfer of sovereignty from the smaller EU states to the larger ones.

As somebody who will vote 'Yes' this time, that does concern me greatly.

Is this the Anthony Coughlan who has claimed that every single EU treaty would introduce abortion, and has produced a list of 13 facts on Lisbon that are all completely incorrect?

thomond2006

mike65 wrote: »

No The people who put that up are more barking than Mrs Barkings small Terrier that won the Worlds Most Barking Dog contest which by happy chance was held in Barking.

Woof?

pigeonbutler

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

No Pathetic tactics is when the people vote no and they are not respected and forced to vote again.

So we shouldn't have Divorce in Ireland since that required a second referendum in order to pass? :rolleyes:

utick

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Who the hell do you think you are. People dont have to explain why they will vote no.

it certainly seems they do, constantly i see no voters being harassed about why they voted no, while no one seems to be harassing the yes voters,for their reasons for voting yes i think you misunderstood my post

pigeonbutler wrote: »

So we shouldn't have Divorce in Ireland since that required a second referendum in order to pass? :rolleyes:

Yes you could as long as a good period of time has passed, at least 10-15 years, You dont Insult people by having a revote a year on Just because you havent got your way.

marco_polo wrote: »

Is this the Anthony Coughlan who has claimed that every single EU treaty would introduce abortion, and has produced a list of 13 facts on Lisbon that are all completely incorrect?

Is he correct or not in this assessment of Lisbon? If not, why?

I'm voting 'Yes' anyway, if only to separate Ireland from the British rightwing and their irredentist "British Isles" notions about Ireland's position in the world. Just listening to the paper reviews every morning, the British tabloids here are apparently in overdrive on the eurosceptic anti-Lisbon front. That's about as much evidence as I need to know a stronger and more integrated EU is the enemy of British nationalists and thus the friend of most Irish people.

Anyway, back to Coughlan's point, if you will.

The Government posters seem to imply that if the Lisbon Constitreaty is not accepted then Ireland will no longer be "in Europe".

Then you've got this nonsense about "Ireland's poor reputation abroad" being broadcast on state-run television:

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0902/ibec.html

.

utick wrote: »

it certainly seems they do, constantly i see no voters being harassed about why they voted no, while no one seems to be harassing the yes voters,for their reasons for voting yes i think you misunderstood my post

Sorry buddy misread your post:o. Im gona haress people who intend to vote yes.

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

No Pathetic tactics is when the people vote no and they are not respected and forced to vote again.

Well, as you evidently have no problem with the blatant lies of Cóir as a tactic to scare us into voting 'No', I have to seriously wonder about what you understand to be the meaning of the words 'pathetic tactics'.

€1.84 indeed.