nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Minimum wage €1.84?

TheDublinMan

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

R0ot

I'm not voting, in my eyes i've already voted on this once and clearly my answer was wrong so no real point in voting again. :pac:

JONJO THE MISER

Rebelheart wrote: »

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.

Well as you evidently have no problem with the goverment rejecting the no vote and seeking another vote, i have to seriously wonder what you understand to be the meaning of democracy.

In All Fairness

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

:mad::mad:Im sorry but im really angry about this Lisbon vote again, we voted no last time and now they rerun it until they get what they want, if we had voted yes would we have it again, not a chance in hell. I voted NO last time and ill vote NO this time, i wont be told my vote was no good last time and told to vote again:mad:.

Fair play to you Jonjo. I can't remember who said it, but I think it may actually have been an American statesman defending democracy against Fascism (Oh the ironing.:rolleyes:)

"If you are willing to sacrifice liberty for temporary security, you deserve neither."

procure11

marco_polo wrote: »

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.

Hey Marco..excellent post but the truth is that the people would prefare to hear it from the government that is trying to hold a second referendum on a treaty that was rejected a year ago,rather they spend tax-payers funds in printing leaflets that are most likely thrown in the gabbage.

One of the major failures of the government and most Yes campaigners is the consistent /overused cliche about how Ireland would no longer be at the heart of Europe because we dare reject a treaty.I have not heard any government official come out to really explain what the real advantages would be,yet they are not short of words when it comes to how Ireland would suffer so much by rejecting the treaty.

You have to realise that you are talking to a large spectrum of people ie workers/taxi drivers/students/lecturers/housewives/farmers/unemployed etc etc...some of whom do not have the patience or understanding of a third of the valid reasons to vote in favour of the treaty for eg what is the business of an unemployed man/woman about making the EU more accountable when a lot of jobs are going to eastern europe/china/india etc.

I agree with people that suggest that if there is a second rejection of this treaty it would be largely due to how condescending a lot of the Yes campaigners have been.

BleedTheF!FtH

If lisbon comes in, we are ****ed, end of..

This is the vote that will END ALL VOTES.!!
Propaganda comin through the letterbox everyday.!
It probly will get voted in, but i pray that it wont..

Chinafoot

BleedTheF!FtH wrote: »

If lisbon comes in, we are ****ed, end of..

This is the vote that will END ALL VOTES.!!
Propaganda comin through the letterbox everyday.!
It probly will get voted in, but i pray that it wont..

Tell me why. Honestly.

marco_polo

Rebelheart wrote: »

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.

I did hear/see/read his piece so I don't know what the main thrust of his argument was?

All I know is he doesn't appear to know the difference between direct and indirect taxation.

Rebelheart

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

That's bizarre, to strike a blow for freedom against the Brits you're going to vote to give away even more Irish sovereignty to the other former European colonial powers? .

It's nothing of the sort. The EU has been the best thing that has happened Irish society since the Rising and the War of Independence. From new roads to disability rights, the metric system and countless other advances impacting on every man, woman and child, the EU has played a critical role in modernising this profoundly backward/anglocentric society.

I would have more faith in a multinational European confederacy with that history towards Ireland than I would ever have in the John Bull xenophobic and, yes, deeply anti-Irish, agenda of the British tabloids and British eurosceptics as a whole.

The incomprehensible thing, for me, is that any Irish person would align themselves with them and their jingoistic and nostalgic sense of British identity, an identity which is inextricably linked to both anti-Irish and anti-European sentiment.

My biggest problem with the EU in the past 15 years is that it has thrown money at this state without forcing them to create German-style governmental efficiency, Scandinavian-style environmental policies and a French-style health system as a quid pro quo of that money. This state has a long, long way to go, and it wont go far by slavishly following every idea that emerges from Britain. The EU is our future, and has infinitely more to offer Irish society than does the single society that is Great Britain.

In All Fairness

Was replying to the first few posts and saw Jonjo and Rebelheart arguing when my post was entered at this point in the thread. It is Ireland's sddest thing, but Michael Collins and James Connolly managed to put their differences aside and focus on what they both agreed on. It would be nice if we could do the same. I've always been a unionist. I just consider it the "Greater Republic of Ireland".

G,wan the Northern Isles. We'll give Scandinavia a game, if we just get it together.

Jeebus

I'm 18.

How will this affect the price of alcohol ?

mike65

Rebel Heart as a Republican how do you view the traditonal hosility towards the EU by Sinn Fein and other political and/or cultural "little Irelanders"

Moriarty

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

I think that's a misrepresentation of what actually happened. You can read the easily explained, short summation of the ruling here.

Biggins wrote: »

Yep, that case was well reported on at the time and the workers lost their case against the company.
The ruling still stands and is seen by the big companies pushing us (by coincidence :rolleyes: ) to vote "Yes" - because as we all know, the big companies like Ryanair all have their staffs interest at heart. :rolleyes:

Its seen by many as a backdoor route to lowering wages to stupid levels.

Absolute bollocks.

---

Basic sumation of the Laval ruling:

Latvian building company (Laval) wins a public tender in sweden to renovate a school. It should be noted at this point that at the time there was no minimum wage in Sweden, and collective agreements were not legally binding on the construction sector - two things which aren't the case here in Ireland.

Laval decide to pay the Latvian workers that they ship over to Sweden the normal wage that they get paid in Latvia. Swedish unions decide to blockade all Laval sites in Sweden after negotiations to pay these workers the same as Swedish workers break down.

Laval go to the European Court of Justice to see whether the unions had a right to blockade their sites.

European Court of Justice rules that since there was no minimum wage in Sweden, and since the collective agreements were not legally binding on construction companies, unions didn't have a right to blockade every site that Laval ran in an attempt to force them to increase the pay to the Latvian workers.

---

What this means to us? Any company, no matter where they're based in the EU, legally have to pay anyone employed in Ireland at least the minimum wage. They legally have to pay the rates agreed under collective agreements for any that exist, such as in the construction sector. This is exactly the same as for Irish companies operating here.

Beyond those basic levels of pay, it's up to the employer and employee to negotiate a fair amount, the same as in any other job in this country. It wouldn't matter whether it's an Irish company or a Latvian one if they try and decide to get people working at minimum wage for job X: they're both legally entitled to try, but they'll probably find not many people who are willing and able to do it.

tl;dr version: no, you won't be getting paid less than minimum wage by an Elbonian multinational to slave away in the sugar mines next year.

Rebelheart

mike65 wrote: »

Rebel Heart as a Republican how do you view the traditonal hosility towards the EU by Sinn Fein and other political and/or cultural "little Irelanders"

I don't share it and find it quite myopic at this point in our relationship with the EU. But I also don't share the perception of the EU held by most 'mainstream' Fine Gaelers and Fianna Fáilers, i.e. as a cow that needs to be milked in the form of subsidies, grants and the like. Ó Neachtáin and Mitchell's recent press release against the metric system physically repelled me (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1217/1229035813072.html)

My idea of Ireland in the EU is one where we get the best out of it, particularly in the areas of health, environment and governmental and administrative efficiency. Radical reform of our governance, in other words.

Having lived in Scandinavia, I was, and still am, shocked at how much we are behind socially advanced European societies. The addition of Mary Harney and Charlie McCreevy to this society has set back the cause of modernisation and social justice by a long time. That this state is now one of the most rightwing and Thatcherite in the EU is deeply embarrassing to my sense of social democracy, republicanism and egalitarianism.

"We" deserve a massive kick up the arse back to basics.

marco_polo

Moriarty wrote: »

I think that's a misrepresentation of what actually happened. You can read the easily explained, short summation of the ruling here.

Absolute bollocks.

---

Basic sumation of the Laval ruling:

Latvian building company (Laval) wins a public tender in sweden to renovate a school. It should be noted at this point that at the time there was no minimum wage in Sweden, and collective agreements were not legally binding on the construction sector - two things which aren't the case here in Ireland.

Laval decide to pay the Latvian workers that they ship over to Sweden the normal wage that they get paid in Latvia. Swedish unions decide to blockade all Laval sites in Sweden after negotiations to pay these workers the same as Swedish workers break down.

Laval go to the European Court of Justice to see whether the unions had a right to blockade their sites.

European Court of Justice rules that since there was no minimum wage in Sweden, and since the collective agreements were not legally binding on construction companies, unions didn't have a right to blockade every site that Laval ran in an attempt to force them to increase the pay to the Latvian workers.

---

What this means to us? Any company, no matter where they're based in the EU, legally have to pay anyone employed in Ireland at least the minimum wage. They legally have to pay the rates agreed under collective agreements for any that exist, such as in the construction sector. This is exactly the same as for Irish companies operating here.

Beyond those basic levels of pay, it's up to the employer and employee to negotiate a fair amount, the same as in any other job in this country. It wouldn't matter whether it's an Irish company or a Latvian one if they try and decide to get people working at minimum wage for job X: they're both legally entitled to try, but they'll probably find not many people who are willing and able to do it.

tl;dr version: no, you won't be getting paid less than minimum wage by an Elbonian multinational to slave away in the sugar mines next year.

I didn't realise that Sweeden did not have a minimum wage, I thought it was just that the collective bargaining was not binding. I guess that as they have such a strong tradition of social equality it was never deemed nescessary.

JONJO THE MISER

Rebelheart wrote: »

"We" deserve a massive kick up the arse back to basics.

Yes you are right if people vote yes to this scam of a lisbon treaty.

Chinafoot

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Yes you are right if people vote yes to this scam of a lisbon treaty.

Will you please tell me why you think it's a scam. I'm genuinely curious. Anytime I ask anyone who is frothing at the mouth over it they don't give me any reason other than "I already voted. I shouldn't have to again."

Why did you vote no the first time? What is in the treaty that you don't agree with?

Sam Vimes

I'm going to try to explain this one more time in the hopes that it will be heeded. 26 other nations have ratified or will soon ratify this treaty. The Irish people voted no. Naturally a survey was done to find out why

The survey results showed that the biggest issue by far was lack of understanding, and among the other issues were abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and loss of a commissioner

The government went to Europe and negotiated and now it has been decided that all countries will keep their commissioners. Abortion, taxation, neutrality and conscription are not issues related to the treaty and they never were. We now have legal guarantees stating this. People who voted on those issues were deliberately misled by groups with anti-EU agendas.

So in reality the Irish people did not say that they had any problem with the treaty, they had several issues with things that they thought were in the treaty but which actually aren't and their biggest problem was that they didn't understand it.

Well now they've had two years to understand it so the "if you don't know vote no" slogan won't fly anymore. You have no excuse not to know at this stage. If we had given valid reasons for rejection the treaty could have been renegotiated to remove those parts but all we said was we didn't understand it so all anyone can do is give us time and help to understand it so when they ask us to reconsider we can make an informed decision instead of rejecting it because we're afraid to accept something we don't understand, which in reality is what happened the last time

When something is considered important by 26 other nations it's simply not acceptable to say tl;dr and throw it in the bin

marco_polo

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Well as you evidently have no problem with the goverment rejecting the no vote and seeking another vote, i have to seriously wonder what you understand to be the meaning of democracy.

The people are “well capable” of deciding an issue on a second occasion and it was for the people to express their view on October 2nd next, he concluded. That was democracy working at its “most fluid”.

Mr Justice Liam McKechnie (To a crazy Tipp Farmer)

funkydunkey

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.

Not sure if someone already said this but it would mean people that come here to work wudnt be covered by our labour laws, but by there own at home. so the lowest possible rate they cud be workin for is around €1.80.

marco_polo

funkydunkey wrote: »

Not sure if someone already said this but it would mean people that come here to work wudnt be covered by our labour laws, but by there own at home. so the lowest possible rate they cud be workin for is around €1.80.

No this is not true as was pointed out best here

In All Fairness

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Why is boards pro Lisbon? i would of thought they would be netural. It seems all big buissness want the people to vote yes, they can screw themselves, want to drive down wages and do what they want and screw the workers, well Lisbon will be defeated again this time because us Irish people wont be taken for fools. I know of a few people who voted yes last time and now they are going to vote no because of the 2nd vote on this.

It will be a resounding Yes vote, because ultimately we are a selfish/self interested race who don't deserve what we inherited from our forebears. We are the only country who managed to go from fascism to socialism without touching totalatarianism, and we as the children of that great legacy have embraced unfettered capitalism. When Frank Aitken stood up in the UN as Irish Ambassador and voted against America, in favour of China, when China weren't a superpower, it was the first time that any western industrialised country had ever voted against capitalism.

It said we "can't be bought" and when those two countries need a negotiator it should be us. But we've traded on the reputation of men like that for too long.
It behoves us to honour our fathers and mothers.
It's what we're good at, and it's what makes us the barmen in the world of diplomacy.

\sorry, full of Jameson.:( And as for you....:mad::rolleyes:

procure11

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm going to try to explain this one more time in the hopes that it will be heeded. 26 other nations have ratified or will soon ratify this treaty. The Irish people voted no. Naturally a survey was done to find out why

The survey results showed that the biggest issue by far was lack of understanding, and among the other issues were abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and loss of a commissioner

The government went to Europe and negotiated and now it has been decided that all countries will keep their commissioners. Abortion, taxation, neutrality and conscription are not issues related to the treaty and they never were. We now have legal guarantees stating this. People who voted on those issues were deliberately misled by groups with anti-EU agendas.

So in reality the Irish people did not say that they had any problem with the treaty, they had several issues with things that they thought were in the treaty but which actually aren't and their biggest problem was that they didn't understand it.

Well now they've had two years to understand it so the "if you don't know vote no" slogan won't fly anymore. You have no excuse not to know at this stage. If we had given valid reasons for rejection the treaty could have been renegotiated to remove those parts but all we said was we didn't understand it so all anyone can do is give us time and help to understand it so when they ask us to reconsider we can make an informed decision instead of rejecting it because we're afraid to accept something we don't understand, which in reality is what happened the last time

When something is considered important by 26 other nations it's simply not acceptable to say tl;dr and throw it in the bin

Sam,I agree with you that the Irish people voted No for a variety of reasons and it is also true that the reasons are more complex than the so called survey suggested tbh.

Your analysis about 26 other countries ratifying or will soon ratify the treaty is a bit misleading though....The Czech Rep is waiting for Ireland to ratify the treaty,so if we dont the President would not sign it.I am also aware that there are still minute disagreements about the constitutionality of the treaty in Germany.

You also have to realise that it was not only Ireland but all nations of the EU that collectively agreed that all member nations must ratify the treaty before it is endorsed.If only Ireland objects to the treaty( considering we are the only country that held a referendum)- do you think we should be crucified?...If we are ,then there would be serious questions about the motives of the EU as a body.

In All Fairness

Sorry btw. everyone. I have been answeing posts as I see them and am still on page one of this thread. If everything has already been addressed then sorry. Otherwise consider me that Paul Whitehouse character from the Fast Show who can be easily swayed.

Cheers

In All Fairness.

Sam Vimes

procure11 wrote: »

Sam,I agree with you that the Irish people voted No for a variety of reasons and it is also true that the reasons are more complex than the so called survey suggested tbh.

You'd have to take that up with Milward Brown, who conducted the survey. Their results closely matched the impressions I got from boards and IRL

procure11 wrote: »

Your analysis about 26 other countries ratifying or will soon ratify the treaty is a bit misleading though....The Czech Rep is waiting for Ireland to ratify the treaty,so if we dont the President would not sign it.I am also aware that there are still minute disagreements about the constitutionality of the treaty in Germany.

It wasn't misleading, that's why I said "will soon". They don't object to the treaty, there's just little point signing it unless we do. We're the only thing stopping them

As for Germany, their supreme court recently ruled it is compatible with their constitution

procure11 wrote: »

You also have to realise that it was not only Ireland but all nations of the EU that collectively agreed that all member nations must ratify the treaty before it is endorsed.If only Ireland objects to the treaty( considering we are the only country that held a referendum)- do you think we should be crucified?...If we are ,then there would be serious questions about the motives of the EU as a body.

We should not be crucified just for voting no but very very few people can give any good reason to. Honestly, the reason I'm hearing by far the most is people using the treaty as a stick to beat the government with. If a no vote passes and that is shown to be in any way a significant reason I think Ireland should withdraw from the EU because we will have shown that we are not worthy of the privilege of membership. If that happens I will be ashamed to call myself an Irishman

Dankoozy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They don't object to the treaty, there's just little point signing it unless we do.

ah yes, biros are scarce in the ol Czech Republic

congo_90

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

Thats enough to push half of tinfoil parade into crazy mode.. careful now..

Jeebus

Jeebus wrote: »

I'm 18.

How will this affect the price of alcohol ?

I was serious. :pac:

The Big Red Button

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.

Last time round, I was too busy with college and work to research the Lisbon Treaty so, since I didn't understand it, I didn't vote at all.

This summer I have had waaaay too much time on my hands so I researched it in depth. If anything, my attitude at first was biased towards the "no" side. However, after an in-depth analysis I found absolutely no reasons not to vote yes.

My basic conclusion was that, if we vote yes, we (as Irish citizens) won't see a huge difference. There should be lower crime (prostitution, drug trafficking, illegal immigrants etc.) and more job opportunities in areas such as energy and the environment. But the Treaty deals largely with European administrative matters, which won't affect you or I in day-to-day life.

If we vote no, we will probably notice that we are at a major disadvantage. Maybe we won't notice this straight away, but we will in a couple of years. If Europe can't move forward with us (and they have given us ample opportunity), they will move forward without us. Isn't it better that we as a country are given some say in major decisions that will affect all of us?

And for those voting no because they're anti-Fianna-Fail - are you saying that you trust Brian Cowen and co more than you trust democratically elected EU leaders?

For the record, the Lisbon Treaty does not affect the Irish government's control over issues such as conscription, abortion and taxation. This is a fact. If the no side claims otherwise, they are lying. It is as simple as that.

As I said, I have researched the boring serious stuff in depth. However, I also found an interesting piece written by Jason O Mahoney (linked in my sig) which pretty much confirmed everything I had already worked out. If you have ten minutes to spare, have a look at it with an open mind. It's extremely readable, and it really does do a very good job of summarising what the Lisbon Treaty does and doesn't involve.

At the end of the day, if you don't understand the Treaty, then voting either way is just irresponsible. Either take the time to research and understand it, or else please refrain from voting.

skelliser

doesnt sweden not have a minimum rate for certain types of work under collective bargining

marco_polo

Dankoozy wrote: »

ah yes, biros are scarce in the ol Czech Republic

If fact the Parliament has already ratified it months ago, but the eurosceptic Czech President is refusing to sign it for no apparent reason, except presumeably thathe has his fingers crossed that we will do his dirty work for him.