Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 03:23PM

Godge wrote: »

Dunnes Stores, see previous posts on the last two pages by a number of poster.

P.S. They don't recognise unions either.

P.P.S. As far as I know, they are profitable.

but they are profitable so there is the difference. Anyone claiming any bank in this country to be typical of how the private sector go about their business is deluded at best. As long as the gov foolishly keep them afloat why wouldnt they pay increments..Sure they see the ps doing the same..

Just so you know I think the bankers are as much to blame as our overspend in areas such as the ps and social welfare but if the banks didnt go belly up we would still be where we are. So as I say name one private sector company with the following properties

Not making a profit
Not using tax payers money to keep them afloat
And paying a pay rise..?

Godge · 24-01-2013 03:24PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

250 million this year.
300 million last year.
120 million year before.

By their nature, the amount of increments paid varies little from year to year unless there are pay increases or significant recruitment (in fact in our situation, the cost should have been going down as more people reached the top of the scale than were being recruited or promoted). It is therefore impossible for increments to have risen from €120m in 2011 to €300m in 2012. Someone somewhere (and I don't mean you) is telling porkies if those are the figures you have been given

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We are in an IMF / EU bailout program because we can't borrow enough money to run the country. The deficit is currently 14 billion. Every few years that amounts to a bank bailout.

In Greece the public sector pay has been cut by 50%. Here it has barely been touched. That is why there are no protests. Because it is usually the public sector who protest.

They are stronger politically. If anyone in the public sector thinks they have it hard - leave.

Let us just deal in facts rather than hyperbole. You said that we are in administration and that nobody is lending us money. At least two groups are lending us money:

(1) IMF/EU/ECB
(2) International and domestic bondholders

Ok, rates aren't the best but we are still able to borrow. FACT.

noodler · 24-01-2013 03:24PM

kceire wrote: »

Your in trouble now, posting crap you cant back up...tut tut..

Wow.

Amazing how you lose the ability to find the reply button when you are being called up on your crap.

24-01-2013 03:24PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In Greece the public sector pay has been cut by 50%. Here it has barely been touched. That is why there are no protests. Because it is usually the public sector who protest.

They are stronger politically. If anyone in the public sector thinks they have it hard - leave.

It is a fair point, if you are really so undervalued and wages in the private sector are higher why not take your chances?

Gumbo · 24-01-2013 03:24PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Anyone claiming any bank in this country to be typical of how the private sector go about their business is deluded at best.

And equally, Anyone claiming all PS staff in this country to be typical of how the public sector go about their business based on the high earners and TD's are deluded at best.

noodler wrote: »

Wow.

Amazing how you lose the ability to find the reply button when you are being called up on your crap.

Dont worry, it happens to us all, just go get some facts or a source to back up your claims and then natural balance will be restored to boards.ie

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 03:28PM

kceire wrote: »

And equally, Anyone claiming all PS staff in this country to be typical of how the public sector go about their business based on the high earners and TD's are deluded at best.

I think if you look at the majority of the anti ps posters most have stated front line should be left alone, also those on the lower ends be left alone or hit with a very small pay cut. But the PS use collective bargaining via their unions and attack one area and its all out war..Look at increments, look at the attempt to get rid of outdated and ridiculous perks. This is what we are dealing with. I have stated time and again that the front line have a hard job to do but at the same time we see numerous scandals on waste and inefficiencies all the time. The battle lines are drawn and those on the lower end will end up getting the worst of it as the gov seem hell bent on protecting their buddies in the higher echelons in the ps and in the banks aswell

Gumbo · 24-01-2013 03:31PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Look at increments, look at the attempt to get rid of outdated and ridiculous perks

What perks do you consider be removed?

Godge · 24-01-2013 03:31PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Ok let me change tact any company not being kept afloat with tax payers money is there increments going on. As I said in my last post the problem with the ps is the same as the banks in one word the unions.

You asked this question

Godge wrote: »

Dunnes Stores, see previous posts on the last two pages by a number of poster.

I provided this answer which met every one of your criteria.

fliball123 wrote: »

but they are profitable so there is the difference.

You move the goalposts. Quelle surprise?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1214/dunnes-stores-winding-up-order-withdrawn.html

What if I said that Dunnes Stores narrowly avoided being wound up last month (see link) and that there are consequently serious question marks over its continued viability given the delays in paying its debts.

In order to prove me wrong, produce a link to a credible source with hard information such as accounts to prove that Dunnes are profitable. Otherwise, I would argue that I have met your three criteria moving target in full.

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 03:34PM

kceire wrote: »

What perks do you consider be removed?

There was an attempt to get rid of a certain amount I cant remember exactly off hand and they got less than 5% of savings in this area then they needed.

Gumbo · 24-01-2013 03:35PM

fliball123 wrote: »

There was an attempt to get rid of a certain amount I cant remember exactly off hand and they got less than 5% of savings in this area then they needed.

Again, What are these perks that you consider be removed?

Godge · 24-01-2013 03:35PM

noodler wrote: »

The entire basis for your post was predicated on the reason bank staff numbers/branches falling was due to increasing the salaries of other staff members.

That is false. Banks are downsizing in staff and branches because they have downsized their business operations.

No, the corrollary of my point is that if banks had cut pay like the public service, then they wouldn't have had to cut staff and services as much, particularly the closing of branches which is affecting rural and elderly customers to a greater extent which makes my point entirely valid. The only change (in bold) I would make to my original posts is that the preservation of pay rises for existing staff members is part of the reason bank staff numbers/branches were falling.

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 03:36PM

Godge wrote: »

You asked this question

I provided this answer which met every one of your criteria.

You move the goalposts. Quelle surprise?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1214/dunnes-stores-winding-up-order-withdrawn.html

What if I said that Dunnes Stores narrowly avoided being wound up last month (see link) and that there are consequently serious question marks over its continued viability given the delays in paying its debts.

In order to prove me wrong, produce a link to a credible source with hard information such as accounts to prove that Dunnes are profitable. Otherwise, I would argue that I have met your three criteria moving target in full.

Hang on that was because of payment of a debt, this does not prove they are in debt. They just decided to pay last minute and did not want to pay due to the circumstances of how the shopping centre they agreed to move into turned out. So they were infact trying to expand, hardly the actions of a company in debt or in trouble now is it

So to date any PS going on about this debate..

Show a private sector company
In debt (not with debts)
overborrowing
and paying payrises

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 03:39PM

kceire wrote: »

Again, What are these perks that you consider be removed?

Ah I am not going through all of these boot allowances for gaurds blah blah..There are a shed load of them that are no longer valid. There is a link up there to them.

Godge · 24-01-2013 03:40PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

. If anyone in the public sector thinks they have it hard - leave.

You can do better than that. For a start, I don't work in the public sector - I wouldn't have had access to boards where I worked before but I don't think boards was around then, have to check.

Secondly, if you think the public sector is such a great place to work, which of the following 92 jobs have you applied for this week

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/jobsearch.htm;jsessionid=106BC821BA147729A96482AB1E488056

Gumbo · 24-01-2013 03:41PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Ah I am not going through all of these boot allowances for gaurds blah blah..There are a shed load of them that are no longer valid. There is a link up there to them.

so you couldnt be bothered to back up your claims....kinda sums up this forum and most of its users to be honest.

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 03:42PM

Godge wrote: »

You can do better than that. For a start, I don't work in the public sector - I wouldn't have had access to boards where I worked before but I don't think boards was around then, have to check.

Secondly, if you think the public sector is such a great place to work, which of the following 92 jobs have you applied for this week

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/jobsearch.htm;jsessionid=106BC821BA147729A96482AB1E488056

Well same goes if the ps think they are being treated harshly leave and join the private sector

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 03:44PM

kceire wrote: »

so you couldnt be bothered to back up your claims....kinda sums up this forum and most of its users to be honest.

here read away
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/howlins-uturn-puts-nurses-and-gardai-in-firing-line-3256441.html

http://per.gov.ie/2012/09/18/review-of-public-service-allowances-and-premium-payments/

Godge · 24-01-2013 03:45PM

fliball123 wrote: »

I think if you look at the majority of the anti ps posters most have stated front line should be left alone, also those on the lower ends be left alone or hit with a very small pay cut.

How much do you really think could be saved if you left low-paid and front-line staff alone?

I am happy to do the calculations for you if you explain exactly who should be excluded and who should be covered.

P.S. One I came across on the DIT website. A student counsellor (front-line staff) gets paid up to €84,100. Are you happy that this is the correct rate? Or are things a little more complicated than you thought.

Godge · 24-01-2013 03:47PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Hang on that was because of payment of a debt, this does not prove they are in debt. They just decided to pay last minute and did not want to pay due to the circumstances of how the shopping centre they agreed to move into turned out. So they were infact trying to expand, hardly the actions of a company in debt or in trouble now is it

So to date any PS going on about this debate..

Show a private sector company
In debt (not with debts)
overborrowing
and paying payrises

There go the goalposts again.

sarumite · 24-01-2013 03:47PM

Godge wrote: »

You can do better than that. For a start, I don't work in the public sector - I wouldn't have had access to boards where I worked before but I don't think boards was around then, have to check.

Secondly, if you think the public sector is such a great place to work, which of the following 92 jobs have you applied for this week

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/jobsearch.htm;jsessionid=106BC821BA147729A96482AB1E488056

You can also do better than that. Just looking at the first page alone, the 92 jobs include several assistant professorships amongst other highly specific job titles. I dare say most people can't apply for them even if they wanted to.

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 03:47PM

Godge wrote: »

How much do you really think could be saved if you left low-paid and front-line staff alone?

I am happy to do the calculations for you if you explain exactly who should be excluded and who should be covered.

P.S. One I came across on the DIT website. A student counsellor (front-line staff) gets paid up to €84,100. Are you happy that this is the correct rate? Or are things a little more complicated than you thought.

I didnt say left alone I said they should be left with a smaller cut and if I typed otherwise I did not mean that.

Godge · 24-01-2013 03:48PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Well same goes if the ps think they are being treated harshly leave and join the private sector

:DThis is getting funny:D:D

read the post I responded to which made the exact same argument.

:D:D

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 03:48PM

Godge wrote: »

There go the goalposts again.

What goalpost changed there. ?

You confused dunnes having to pay a debt rather than being in debt. So still to date no private sector company with the following properties are paying pay rises

Getting bailed out by tax payers money
In debt and borrowing

If there are show me

noodler · 24-01-2013 03:50PM

Godge wrote: »

No, the corrollary of my point is that if banks had cut pay like the public service, then they wouldn't have had to cut staff and services as much, particularly the closing of branches which is affecting rural and elderly customers to a greater extent which makes my point entirely valid. The only change (in bold) I would make to my original posts is that the preservation of pay rises for existing staff members is part of the reason bank staff numbers/branches were falling.

Yes, the bit you put in bold is a complete and utter change in your orginal post.

Banks are closing branches and layinf off workers because of pay increases to other staff.

Banks are closing branches and laying off workers due in a very small way to increase being paid to other staff.

Changes the whole post.

The biggest reason for redundancies and closures is, by an absolute country mile, the deleveraging of the banks as a result of the crisis and EU/IMF targets.

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 03:51PM

Godge wrote: »

:DThis is getting funny:D:D

read the post I responded to which made the exact same argument.

:D:D

Good yours was the reverse was it not that the private sector should go work in the ps if it is such a handy number?

Godge · 24-01-2013 03:52PM

noodler wrote: »

Wow.

Amazing how you lose the ability to find the reply button when you are being called up on your crap.

I agree that it is terrible when people disappear in such circumstances.

noodler wrote: »

I call absolute bull**** on this after I worked four years in retail on the same wage per hour.

Godge wrote: »

Now where in retail did you work? All of the major retailers operate incremental scales. Even though Dunnes are notoriously secretive about their arrangements here is one article about their six-point scale (I appreciate it is twelve years old but if you want to prove it has changed, do so)

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2000/01/inbrief/ie0001202n.htm

Of course I could be wrong - maybe you did work in retail, perhaps they operated a performance-based scale and you didn't qualify to move up the scale. Maybe you could tell me which years you worked in retail because again all of the major retailers applied the general round increases that applied because of the national pay agreement so if you were employed anytime between 1987 and 2008 you would have seen at least one increase a year from the pay agreements. If you want to show the above is "bull****", please provide a link.

.

Is there an ironic smilie here?

Tim Robbins · 24-01-2013 03:54PM

Would anyone here from the public sector favour their wages cut if it could proved beyond unreasonable doubt that the country could not afford to maintain their wages at current level irrespective of bank bailout and it if could also be proved that the public sector were getting more than private sector and more than public sector in every other country in Europe?

Godge · 24-01-2013 03:54PM

fliball123 wrote: »

What goalpost changed there. ?

You confused dunnes having to pay a debt rather than being in debt. So still to date no private sector company with the following properties are paying pay rises

Getting bailed out by tax payers money
In debt and borrowing

If there are show me

The above is on a different playing pitch to the below.

fliball123 wrote: »

Ok let me change tact any company not being kept afloat with tax payers money is there increments going on. As I said in my last post the problem with the ps is the same as the banks in one word the unions.

Godge · 24-01-2013 03:58PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Would anyone here from the public sector favour their wages cut if it could proved beyond unreasonable doubt that the country could not afford to maintain their wages at current level irrespective of bank bailout and that the public sector were getting more than private sector and more than public sector in every other country in Europe?

That is a silly question because there are always other drastic options

(1) Increase standard income tax rate to 35%
(2) Abolish all tax reliefs and replace with a 10% tax up to the average level of the tax reliefs
(3) Cut social welfare by 35%
(4) Triple the property tax

I could go on. Is there anyone from any sector here who would favour the above if it could be proved that the country could not afford these irrespective of bank bailout?

You need to demonstrate that the best option for the country and the easiest most effective way to save money is through public service pay cuts. Nobody has yet been able to do that.

noodler · 24-01-2013 03:58PM

Godge wrote: »

Is there an ironic smilie here?

I'll come back to it.

Have you actually proved supermarkets give annual increments?

Or just Dunnes?

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments