Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Godge · 25-01-2013 11:21AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How about looking at if from the perspective of the common good? the tax payer? The unemployed and thousands of others who do not have a professional negotiators and who can grind the country to a halt if they don't like what's on the table??

Did you look at it from the perspective of the common good the last time you negotiated your salary? Or even the good of your company? I haven't, I have always placed the highest price on my own worth and negotiated accordingly.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I said 14 billion. So rounded up. Next time I'll go to one decimal place.

I don't believe 3% deficit is sustainable because it requires a growth rate of more than 3% which is boom / bust thinking. It also means it's impossible to reduce your debt / GDP ratio unless you have massive growth and the yearning for another bubble - boom bust.

Have you learned anything about what happens when you run an economy that way??

It doesn't require 3% economic growth, that is a fallacy. It requires 3% increase in the money value i.e. growth plus inflation. We have easily achieved much more than 3% on average over the last forty years on that measure. Unless you can demonstrate that the economic paradigm has shifted dramatically and permanently, I think it is safe to assume we will be in that territory again very soon (I am not sure about 2012 but I am confident 2013 will see combined inflation and growth of 3%.)

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't believe or trust the government. But you regard them as reliable on economic forecasts and predictions. I think their track record of both this government and the last shows that they can't be trusted.

If the collapse didn't happen because of intrinsic faults with our government, public sector and banks I might have some more trust but when they are the culprits why should anyone trust them?

This isn't the conspiracy theory forum. If you can explain to me how the government is manipulating the Central Statistics Office, maybe I will listed to this.

fliball123 · 25-01-2013 11:23AM

kceire wrote: »

This is not a thread to get emotional in. Dunnes and tesco etc staff are not on minimum wage or anything near it.

What's sickening is the attitude of the students on here that have never worked a day in their lives and to think they are tomorrows generation, god help us all.

They have as much right as anyone to complain when they see the things going on that are going on. How unfair is it that yes they may not have worked due to the way the job market it is and yet the current mess of our overspend problem coupled with the dealings of the bank situation means they have a choice of 2 futures, be laidened down with overpaying tax for the possible the duration of their career or emigrate...

Tim Robbins · 25-01-2013 11:29AM

Godge wrote: »

Did you look at it from the perspective of the common good the last time you negotiated your salary? Or even the good of your company? I haven't, I have always placed the highest price on my own worth and negotiated accordingly.

I have never been able to negotiate my salary. It is told to me and if I have an issue with it I can leave. But if this is as close to an admission of your greed and lack of regard for the common good and tax payer so be it.

It doesn't require 3% economic growth, that is a fallacy. It requires 3% increase in the money value i.e. growth plus inflation. We have easily achieved much more than 3% on average over the last forty years on that measure. Unless you can demonstrate that the economic paradigm has shifted dramatically and permanently, I think it is safe to assume we will be in that territory again very soon (I am not sure about 2012 but I am confident 2013 will see combined inflation and growth of 3%.)

Inflation can mean you need to borrow even more money. Say your deficit is 10K and then because of inflation it goes to 20K. Then you need to borrow that. Heard of Zimbabwe.

This isn't the conspiracy theory forum. If you can explain to me how the government is manipulating the Central Statistics Office, maybe I will listed to this.

Well I congratulate you for using statistics and my 20% / 30% was off.

However, your stats don't show you everything. My friend has been thru nine rounds of redundancies and has his pay or his working hours cut 9 times since the collapse.

That's horrific. However, on your stats he is still employed and in fact used as a bargaining chip in your "negotiations".

In addition, redundancy in the private sector is usually far more traumatic. It is not always voluntary - sometimes they just pick people one day. So everyone is sh*tting it even people who keep their jobs.

Where does that fit into your stats?

And usually in the private sector people work for far more hours than it says in their contracts. Free overtime. This is never recorded in any statistic by the CSO.

So you can find evidence that suits your argument all you like but like I said previously, I live in Ireland.

Godge · 25-01-2013 11:33AM

noodler wrote: »

I am not too sure where your issue lies with what he said. Nor, why you are focusing on labour force.

His 20-30% seems excessive I admit but for the sake of argument:

However from the same link:

Numbers Employed in Ireland was 2113.9 in Q2 2007

This fell to 1787.9 in Q2 2012.

So there are 326,000 less people working.

We know the PS workforce has reduced by about 30,000 or so (albeit on very generous voluntary schemes or early retirment packages).

So, for ball park purposes (although I can be more specific if I actually go into the latest QNHS quarterly release). there are nearly 300,000 les people working in the private sector.

Now undoubtedly, some of these people retired but given there were 1.8m Private sector workers in 2007 and only 1.5m now it tells us that broadly speaking Private sector employment is down nearly 20%.

I don't know how many of those were compulsory redundancies but I think it is a safe bet to say the majority were.

Yes, of course, my mistake ,I used the wrong figures. but let us look again using the correct figures.

2113.9 down to 1787.9 is a reduction of 15.4%. Generous voluntary redundancy schemes are not just a feature of the public sector, in fact the private sector ones are usually more generous and we know that large employers such as the banks, Eircom, Aer Lingus, Guinness used voluntary redundancies and that temporary employment was not renewed across the private sector (again not considered compulsory redundancy in the public sector), you would be doing well to say that two-thirds of that was compulsory. That would give you a figure of 10% compulsory redundancy in the private sector.

How does this compare to the poster's statement that 20-30% is common?

Godge · 25-01-2013 11:44AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have never been able to negotiate my salary. It is told to me and if I have an issue with it I can leave. But if this is as close to an admission of your greed and lack of regard for the common good and tax payer so be it..

I am a private sector employee!!!!!! I left the public sector because I could get better terms!!!! Why should I have regard for the taxpayer and if I was still there I would say the same!. They have probably replaced me with someone who is only half as good as me because that it what they are offering. Why should I have stayed in the public sector and earned less money when I could get in a better paying private sector job???? That is what you are asking of individuals to do. How would you feel about being asked to have regard to the common good. Hey, why don't you join the public sector and give up your poorly paid private sector job and then while luxuriating in the high salary which you believe all those public servants are on, you can have lots of regard for the common good and the taxpayer!!!

A public servant should say I don't have enough money to pay my mortgage or go on holiday but I must have regard to the taxpayer and the common good. Get real, do you really accept that public servants are human beings?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Inflation can mean you need to borrow even more money. Say your deficit is 10K and then because of inflation it goes to 20K. Then you need to borrow that. Heard of Zimbabwe..

No it doesn't mean that. If you freeze public sector pay, income tax rates and bands and social welfare while there is inflation in the economy and wages go up in the private sector, taxes rise and the budget deficit closes by itself.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well I congratulate you for using statistics and my 20% / 30% was off.

However, your stats don't show you everything. My friend has been thru nine rounds of redundancies and has his pay or his working hours cut 9 times since the collapse.

That's horrific. However, on your stats he is still employed and in fact used as a bargaining chip in your "negotiations".

In addition, redundancy in the private sector is usually far more traumatic. It is not always voluntary - sometimes they just pick people one day. So everyone is sh*tting it even people who keep their jobs.

Where does that fit into your stats?

And usually in the private sector people work for far more hours than it says in their contracts. Free overtime. This is never recorded in any statistic by the CSO.

So you can find evidence that suits your argument all you like but like I said previously, I live in Ireland.

We all have stories. I know of people let go in the private sector on huge packages and hired back the following week as sub-contractors or consultants because it was more tax-efficient for both sides. They count in the compulsory redundancy statistics but they never left. Anecdotes are only useful conversation in the pub.

As for the free overtime, I have never worked as much free overtime in the private sector as I did in some of the public sector jobs I did.

Godge · 25-01-2013 11:47AM

jh79 wrote: »

I am questioning how successful they are likely to be, we all know how much power they had given the generous conditions of CP1, its whether they can do it again? They might not care about public opinion but it does have influence. Labour are the junior coalition partner also.

Fair enough but you said the 1 bn would be saved, like it or not. I don't believe it is that simple.

Public servants vote for Labour. Social Welfare recipients vote for Sinn Fein. Generalities but some day there will be an election.

Tim Robbins · 25-01-2013 12:03PM

Godge wrote: »

A public servant should say I don't have enough money to pay my mortgage or go on holiday but I must have regard to the taxpayer and the common good. Get real, do you really accept that public servants are human beings?

I lived in Sweden for a while and the attitude there is everyone cares about the common good far more than here. People are prepared to pay high taxes
because they see the sense in it.

Similarly, I am prepared to pay property tax because I see the sense in it.

My ideological values are basically the Scandinavian model. You have a more capitalist / neo-liberal view where everyone fights for themselves and then everything just sort of works.

No it doesn't mean that. If you freeze public sector pay, income tax rates and bands and social welfare while there is inflation in the economy and wages go up in the private sector, taxes rise and the budget deficit closes by itself.

IT is a really bad idea to base any economy strategy on inflation. It will kill competitiveness and exports.

Tim Robbins · 25-01-2013 12:04PM

Godge wrote: »

As for the free overtime, I have never worked as much free overtime in the private sector as I did in some of the public sector jobs I did.

Would you agree the public sector is more homogeneous than the private sector?

I mean bit of a difference to someone working on minimum wage in a retail and a fat cat CEO of a bank.

noodler · 25-01-2013 12:09PM

Godge wrote: »

Yes, of course, my mistake ,I used the wrong figures. but let us look again using the correct figures.

Fair enough: Labour force = Employed + Unemployed just for everyone's FYI.

Godge wrote: »

2113.9 down to 1787.9 is a reduction of 15.4%.

But were we not looking for that private sector fall?

In which case we strip out the 330,000 PS jobs in 2007.

It works out closer to 20%.

Godge wrote: »

Generous voluntary redundancy schemes are not just a feature of the public sector, i

True.

Godge wrote: »

in fact the private sector ones are usually more generous and we know that large employers such as the banks, Eircom, Aer Lingus, Guinness used voluntary redundancies

I can't agree with this really. Usually more generous is what you say but then you list two or three companies, two of which are semi-states. That really isn't representative of the the types of workers who have lost their jobs in the last 5 years.

The biggest falls have been in the construction and retail industries.

Godge wrote: »

and that temporary employment was not renewed across the private sector (again not considered compulsory redundancy in the public sector),

The point was they lost their jobs, no longer contribute taxes, have to draw welfare etc etc. Given an increasing number of workers in the Irish economy have to work on such rolling contracts - I think it would be bad practice to dismiss them personally.

Godge wrote: »

you would be doing well to say that two-thirds of that was compulsory. That would give you a figure of 10% compulsory redundancy in the private sector.

I have absolutely no idea where you plucked that 2/3rds from - it looks like absolute fiction to be honest.

sarumite · 25-01-2013 12:12PM

Godge wrote: »

Yes, of course, my mistake ,I used the wrong figures. but let us look again using the correct figures.

2113.9 down to 1787.9 is a reduction of 15.4%. Generous voluntary redundancy schemes are not just a feature of the public sector, in fact the private sector ones are usually more generous and we know that large employers such as the banks, Eircom, Aer Lingus, Guinness used voluntary redundancies and that temporary employment was not renewed across the private sector (again not considered compulsory redundancy in the public sector), you would be doing well to say that two-thirds of that was compulsory. That would give you a figure of 10% compulsory redundancy in the private sector.

How does this compare to the poster's statement that 20-30% is common?

Are you assuming static employment during that period?

Say there was 20-30% redundancy in one section of the private sector (say construction or retail) but some of this was offset by increased hiring in another unrelated section (say for example IT), that wouldn't reduce the number of people who received compulsory redundancy, however just looking at peaks and through' of employment, that wouldn't be evident. Deeper analysis of the data is required to show this kind of detail.

ardmacha · 25-01-2013 12:21PM

Inflation can mean you need to borrow even more money. Say your deficit is 10K and then because of inflation it goes to 20K. Then you need to borrow that. Heard of Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe is a ridiculous example to bring into the discussion. The suggestion here is that nominal GDP growth will exceed 3%, which it generally will as the ECB will be happy with 2% inflation and 2% real growth is perfectly possible. It is pointless to suggest that a low rate of inflation acceptable to the Bundesbank, which is probably really zero because of technological change, has anything to do with Zimbabwe.

I lived in Sweden for a while and the attitude there is everyone cares about the common good far more than here. People are prepared to pay high taxes

Of course everyone should have a responsible attitude to society. However, there is little responsibility shown in many of the posts here. There is distorted logic along the lines of there are more unemployed => the public sector should pay for these, when a responsible society would expect regard this as a concern of all citizens. Similar distorted logic stays that people who work in the health service should have lower standards of living because the health service is expensive, when every citizen should be contributing proportionally to any costs in health.

Tim Robbins · 25-01-2013 12:21PM

sarumite wrote: »

Are you assuming static employment during that period?

Say there was 20-30% redundancy in one section of the private sector (say construction or retail) but some of this was offset by increased hiring in another unrelated section (say for example IT), that wouldn't reduce the number of people who received compulsory redundancy, however just looking at peaks and through' of employment, that wouldn't be evident. Deeper analysis of the data is required to show this kind of detail.

A lot of employment in IT is also for people who aren't living in Ireland and come from Spain / India whatever to get work. I.T. has a lower representation of people from Ireland than other sectors and when it grows (as it currently is the only thing growing) it skews stats.

deise blue · 25-01-2013 12:22PM

jh79 wrote: »

I am questioning how successful they are likely to be, we all know how much power they had given the generous conditions of CP1, its whether they can do it again? They might not care about public opinion but it does have influence. Labour are the junior coalition partner also.

I believe that the Government are correctly terrified of an Industrial relations meltdown.

The Government are acutely aware that the Unions have had plenty of time to formulate doomsday plans for an effective , highly disruptive strike - the Unions I would imagine would channel all their strike funds to enable frontline employees to strike whilst also preserving their pay - perhaps they also plan to investigate the possibility of establishing a contingency fund so that non frontline PS employees could contribute relatively small amounts to fund the furtherance of such strikes.

I stress that this is a doomsday scenario & I feel a mutually agreed compromise will be arrived at , such a compromise will still be hard to sell to members by the Unions.

I agree with the previous poster who stated that public support is certainly far less important than member's support.

Tim Robbins · 25-01-2013 12:30PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course everyone should have a responsible attitude to society. However, there is little responsibility shown in many of the posts here. There is distorted logic along the lines of there are more unemployed => the public sector should pay for these, when a responsible society would expect regard this as a concern of all citizens. Similar distorted logic stays that people who work in the health service should have lower standards of living because the health service is expensive, when every citizen should be contributing proportionally to any costs in health.

What irks most people is the lack of consistency coming from public sector.

1. Benchmarking good in the good times not good in the bad times.
2. Inflation good when it suits us, not good when Zimbabwe is referenced.
3. Comparison with private sector such as banks good because it suits us but comparisons with other aspects of private sector e.g. construction sector bad because it doesn't suit it.
4. Awful for bankers and developers to be greedy but if public sector act in self interest they are humans.
5. One minute the capitalist system is blamed for all these problems but the capitalist system would say failed businesses fail which means the banks should be allowed to fail which of course they agree with.
6. Any anecdote that works against them is dismissed as pub talk but any anecdote that works for them is just fine.
7. One minute they are telling us about all the hard working heros in the public sector next minute they are running away from public hospitals and going to private ones.

I could go on...

There is no give whatsoever.

frankosw · 25-01-2013 12:37PM

Just looking through a pile of CVs for a part-time,contract job.

30% of the applicants are Irish for a job that pays nearly twice thedole for 4 hours a day.

So much for the hordes of unemployed desperate to work in the PS.

There's people willing to travel from venezuala to wortk here yet there's Fintans and Daires all over the country saying "I'm not working for that with my qualifications".

Then they complain that there's no work for them.

noodler · 25-01-2013 12:42PM

frankosw wrote: »

Just looking through a pile of CVs for a part-time,contract job.

30% of the applicants are Irish for a job that pays nearly twice thedole for 4 hours a day.

So much for the hordes of unemployed desperate to work in the PS.

There's people willing to travel from venezuala to wortk here yet there's Fintans and Daires all over the country saying "I'm not working for that with my qualifications".

Then they complain that there's no work for them.

Someone call the Data Protection Commissioner.

Farmer Pudsey · 25-01-2013 12:43PM

noodler wrote: »

I can't agree with this really. Usually more generous is what you say but then you list two or three companies, two of which are semi-states. That really isn't representative of the the types of workers who have lost their jobs in the last 5 years.

QUOTE]

Noodler technically you are wrong both Aer Lingus and Eircom are both private companies which were privatised. However both carried terms and conditions from there past lives.

They also are an intresting study in privatitation and from semi-state and public service.

Eircom previously Telcom Eireann and before that the P&T was seperated in the early 1980's and two semi states formed Telecom amd An Post.

Telecom had if my source is right about 18K staff and was reduced to about 9-10K by the time it was privatised and to less than 6k now including Meteor and other subsideies now. This was all done without virtuall any Industrial action. It seems that Pre semi-state staff are covered by legislation when it went semi-state.

Aer Lingus seems to hop from one disaster to another but seems to be getting there. However they are also a good example of the disater that private sector workers can have over pension rights.

However Godge all the companies you quoted are not good examples of general redundancies accross the private sector. Most that left the building industry, car/machinery industry etc., got statutory redundancy and often had to wait because there companies went into recievership. When talking about the labour force you also fail to take into account alot of sole traders wheather self employed in the building industry who now have no work and cannot draw welfare as they are only entitled to it means tested and if there wife is working they will not qualify. I know one lad that pays the minimum volantary contribution so as to qualify for the OAP. He has very little work.

20% forced redundacies in the private sector would be more or less right you would need to look at numbers unemployed for two years or longer as this would take into account churn those that were made unemployed and found new jobs. Over the last 4-5 years very few opted out of jobs by choice as they find it hard to find jobs.

A good example of thsi is the Guards where during the boom a lot retired in when they had there 30 years completed as they were able to draw there pension get a job which would qualify them for the OAP when they reached retirement age less (virtually none)of them are doing it now.

Usually multi nationals give fairly good redundancy terms however some do not ( example Talk Talk). However aggross the small retail/services industry in general it is Statutory only.

Godge · 25-01-2013 12:56PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What irks most people is the lack of consistency coming from public sector.

1. Benchmarking good in the good times not good in the bad times..

As you have been mainly debating with me for the last few pages, maybe I could respond. And remember I am not a public servant which makes this quite ironic. I have never said no to benchmarking now. However, I have pointed out a few difficulties.

(1) The crude pay cuts and pension levies across the boards have resulted in a situation where some people are overpaid, some people are underpaid and some people are correctly paid.

(2) Some of the comparisons to Europe or to the private sector show different results depending on which one we use. While the cutters here would pick and choose the ones to suit them, they won't be at the table but the unions will

(3) which brings me to the way benchmarking has worked to date. The management and unions jointly agree a small number of grades and the results are more generally applied on a linked basis. Again, the unions are the ones at the table picking the grades.

Now, no point in saying do it another way, as you need union agreement. So the likelihood is that the union will press for grades they think are underpaid using the comparison they favour and the result will be something that is far from the slashing cuts that you and other misguided posters think will happen. I could provide links and explanations from the benchmarking reports to show what I mean but maybe you should read them first.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

2. Inflation good when it suits us, not good when Zimbabwe is referenced..

The ECB has a target of 2% inflation, so does the UK Central Bank, a low level of inflation is not bad for an economy. So the 3% nominal rise in GDP is easily achievable in both the short and long run.

That does not mean we are Zimbabwe. Apples and oranges.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

3. Comparison with private sector such as banks good because it suits us but comparisons with other aspects of private sector e.g. construction sector bad because it doesn't suit it..

Posters generally want to see all of the public sector cut and treat it as a homogenoous entity.

There is good reason to treat the construction sector differently. If you viewed the Irish economy from the 1990s onwards as healthy skin, the construction sector was like a pimple or wart that the bigger it got, the more of a problem it became until serious action was needed.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

4. Awful for bankers and developers to be greedy but if public sector act in self interest they are humans..

All people act to a greater extent in self-interest, though not completely, that is the nature of humanity. I have maintained that all sectors of Irish society became greedy in the late 2000s from the social welfare recipient who felt he was owed a standard of living by the state that included holidays abroad to the developers who wanted to own the world.

That doesn't people shouldn't be entitled to defend what they get in whatever way they wish.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

5. One minute the capitalist system is blamed for all these problems but the capitalist system would say failed businesses fail which means the banks should be allowed to fail which of course they agree with..

We are revisiting the mistakes of Cowen and Lenihan in 2008 which nobody agreed with, including I am led to believe, most senior civil servants. That has nothing to do with Croke Park II. The budget deficit problem is there, the discussion has to be about how best to remedy it, not who caused it.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

6. Any anecdote that works against them is dismissed as pub talk but any anecdote that works for them is just fine..

I tend not to deal in anecdotes. A discussion starts about pay increases in retail supermarkets, I produce links. Others tell an anecdote about a mystical supermarket that didn't increase its hourly rate for four years.

Public policy should never be informed by anecdotes. An "I live in Ireland" response only demonstrates a pre-conceived attitude not open to considering alternatives.

And when the figures are wrong, I admit it.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

7. One minute they are telling us about all the hard working heros in the public sector next minute they are running away from public hospitals and going to private ones..

I am not Gerry Adams, and I don't think any of the other posters are either. You can still get hospital insurance in other countries, it buys you different standards of care, it is not illegal.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I could go on...

There is no give whatsoever.

Why not go on. 107 spurious points with no links to hard data, evidence or figures is no different to 7 such spurious points.

Farmer Pudsey · 25-01-2013 12:56PM

frankosw wrote: »

Just looking through a pile of CVs for a part-time,contract job.

30% of the applicants are Irish for a job that pays nearly twice thedole for 4 hours a day.

So much for the hordes of unemployed desperate to work in the PS.

There's people willing to travel from venezuala to wortk here yet there's Fintans and Daires all over the country saying "I'm not working for that with my qualifications".

Then they complain that there's no work for them.

First of all Frankosw I presume that you are entitled to lok at the CV's so I will comment.

Most of the poster would agree with you re some people looking for work.

However while the job is twice the dole rate for a 4 hour day it will end paying exactly the same as unemployment benifit. This is what we often refer to in welfare threads as the welfare trap. Due to high rates of unemplyment benifit it would not pay an unemployed person to take the job with costs of transport etc as it is 4 hours a day he would qualify for little or no benifit.

TBH it is a very poor expansion of this thread. Reading welfare threads this is often well discussed and most of the posters that are my economic thinking believe that welfare need to contribute as well and taxes also. however PS pay has also to contribute.

frankosw · 25-01-2013 01:02PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

However while the job is twice the dole rate for a 4 hour day it will end paying exactly the same as unemployment benifit. .

No it wont..you pay almost no tax on wages that low and as i said its almost double what the dole would pay...and besides of which IT'S A JOB!!

My first job back in 1991 payed £1.80 per hour..i often used to come out with around the same or just a bit more than my friend who got £45 per week on the dole but guess what? I'm not afraid to go out and actually get off my hole..its not all about how comfortable you can make yourself.

People going on about the need to rescue the economy and all that crap yet actually advocating the dole as a lifestyle choice..if the dole is paying more than *any* bloody job then it needs to be seriously looked at.

frankosw · 25-01-2013 01:07PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Due to high rates of unemplyment benifit it would not pay an unemployed person to take the job with costs of transport etc as it is 4 hours a day he would qualify for little or no benifit.
.

And so he shouldnt..he's gonna be working for a living...if you can live on 186 per week then you can live on 400 per week..people are just too used to getting stuff for nothing...you gotta start somewhere.

Looking at CV's from people who are 27 years of age and been in education since they were kids and ZERO work experience...."masters" this and "postdoc" that..complete crap,they've been leeching off grants for years and have contributed exactly nothing to the economy.

And you should see some of the cover letters...they look like they were written by retards..a ten year old kid in the 1980's would know better than to misspell the job they were applying for.

Godge · 25-01-2013 01:08PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Noodler technically you are wrong both Aer Lingus and Eircom are both private companies which were privatised. However both carried terms and conditions from there past lives.

They also are an intresting study in privatitation and from semi-state and public service.

Eircom previously Telcom Eireann and before that the P&T was seperated in the early 1980's and two semi states formed Telecom amd An Post.

Telecom had if my source is right about 18K staff and was reduced to about 9-10K by the time it was privatised and to less than 6k now including Meteor and other subsideies now. This was all done without virtuall any Industrial action. It seems that Pre semi-state staff are covered by legislation when it went semi-state.

Aer Lingus seems to hop from one disaster to another but seems to be getting there. However they are also a good example of the disater that private sector workers can have over pension rights.

However Godge all the companies you quoted are not good examples of general redundancies accross the private sector. Most that left the building industry, car/machinery industry etc., got statutory redundancy and often had to wait because there companies went into recievership. When talking about the labour force you also fail to take into account alot of sole traders wheather self employed in the building industry who now have no work and cannot draw welfare as they are only entitled to it means tested and if there wife is working they will not qualify. I know one lad that pays the minimum volantary contribution so as to qualify for the OAP. He has very little work.

20% forced redundacies in the private sector would be more or less right you would need to look at numbers unemployed for two years or longer as this would take into account churn those that were made unemployed and found new jobs. Over the last 4-5 years very few opted out of jobs by choice as they find it hard to find jobs.

A good example of thsi is the Guards where during the boom a lot retired in when they had there 30 years completed as they were able to draw there pension get a job which would qualify them for the OAP when they reached retirement age less (virtually none)of them are doing it now.

Usually multi nationals give fairly good redundancy terms however some do not ( example Talk Talk). However aggross the small retail/services industry in general it is Statutory only.

You may well be right Farmer, and actually I think there is a way at looking at this. Redundancy statistics are provided by the Department of Social Protection. I can't find it on their site and the number would include both voluntary and compulsory. Here is a link to a site (INOU) which could hardly be accused of wanting to show the numbers as being low.

http://www.inou.ie/policy/statistics/redundancies.html

So 2011 shows the number of redundancies as 49,762 and 2010 as 58,731. Let us assume that the number of redundancies not notified (even though this is a legal requirement) equals the number of voluntary redundancies and accept that there is 50,000 compulsory redundancies a year. Assume that this makes 200,000 over the four year period and this gives an assumption that out of the 1.8m private sector workforce around 11% were made redundant between the end of 2008 and the end of 2012. Now that includes those who were made redundant more than once so the actual number of private sector workers who weren't made redundant at all would be over 92-93%.

11% over four years is close enough to the 10% I arrived at via another method and still a long way from 20-30% being common.

25-01-2013 01:14PM

frankosw wrote: »

And so he shouldnt..he's gonna be working for a living...if you can live on 186 per week then you can live on 400 per week..people are just too used to getting stuff for nothing...you gotta start somewhere.

Looking at CV's from people who are 27 years of age and been in education since they were kids and ZERO work experience...."masters" this and "postdoc" that..complete crap,they've been leeching off grants for years and have contributed exactly nothing to the economy.

And you should see some of the cover letters...they look like they were written by retards..a ten year old kid in the 1980's would know better than to misspell the job they were applying for.

You have something against 3rd level education? Didn't go yourself I take it?

Farmer Pudsey · 25-01-2013 01:19PM

frankosw wrote: »

No it wont..you pay almost no tax on wages that low and as i said its almost double what the dole would pay...and besides of which IT'S A JOB!!

My first job back in 1991 payed £1.80 per hour..i often used to come out with around the same or just a bit more than my friend who got £45 per week on the dole but guess what? I'm not afraid to go out and actually get off my hole..its not all about how comfortable you can make yourself.

People going on about the need to rescue the economy and all that crap yet actually advocating the dole as a lifestyle choice..if the dole is paying more than *any* bloody job then it needs to be seriously looked at.

Frankosw

if you read my total post what you quoted is out of context I am agreeing with you re the issue however it is our Welfare System like our PS pay rates that are the bigges iussue in this country and which are draging the economy down.

Also I agree with you to a certain exten about 3rd level Qulifications however I would not be as dismissive of it as you however one of the reasons that we are given as a EXCUSE fro the higher levels of PS pay is there higher Educational quilifications. I often put this down to people willing to take a job that is a lower spec than there quilification for the security, pension and quality of life attached

Farmer Pudsey · 25-01-2013 01:27PM

Godge wrote: »

You may well be right Farmer, and actually I think there is a way at looking at this. Redundancy statistics are provided by the Department of Social Protection. I can't find it on their site and the number would include both voluntary and compulsory. Here is a link to a site (INOU) which could hardly be accused of wanting to show the numbers as being low.

http://www.inou.ie/policy/statistics/redundancies.html

So 2011 shows the number of redundancies as 49,762 and 2010 as 58,731. Let us assume that the number of redundancies not notified (even though this is a legal requirement) equals the number of voluntary redundancies and accept that there is 50,000 compulsory redundancies a year. Assume that this makes 200,000 over the four year period and this gives an assumption that out of the 1.8m private sector workforce around 11% were made redundant between the end of 2008 and the end of 2012. Now that includes those who were made redundant more than once so the actual number of private sector workers who weren't made redundant at all would be over 92-93%.

11% over four years is close enough to the 10% I arrived at via another method and still a long way from 20-30% being common.

Not disputing your figgures however you have to look at the total no that lsot there jobs since the start of the downturn, addd the churn in employment figures and add to that some of those that emigrated. From studing the local area that I live in it would be well above the 10% figure and even a little above 20% might seem a liitle unsciefitic however this is a fault with our public service in that it fails to provide some such stastics

frankosw · 25-01-2013 01:34PM

jh79 wrote: »

You have something against 3rd level education? Didn't go yourself I take it?

Course i did but i worked all the waythrough my degree and then took the first job i could get when it was finished...frying fish in a restuarant...washing pots in a hotel,retail,delicatessan,salesman,decorator,i've done them all and there was *no* job i thought was beneath me.

What i do take issue with is people studying into thier 30's with no intentions of ever actually working..they call themselves "academics" apparantly..they can hold forth at length about Feminist Literray Criticism or Racial and Ethnic Postmodernism but they know bugger all about the real world,have almost zero in the way of communication abilities and are afraid of thier lives of working somewhere where they might actually have to employ thier bodies instead of thier brains.

noodler · 25-01-2013 01:34PM

Godge wrote: »

Redundancy statistics are provided by the Department of Social Protection. I can't find it on their site and the number would include both voluntary and compulsory.

I couldn't find them either for the last post.

Godge wrote: »

So 2011 shows the number of redundancies as 49,762 and 2010 as 58,731. Let us assume that the number of redundancies not notified (even though this is a legal requirement) equals the number of voluntary redundancies and accept that there is 50,000 compulsory redundancies a year.

Assume that this makes 200,000 over the four year period and this gives an assumption that out of the 1.8m private sector workforce around 11% were made redundant between the end of 2008 and the end of 2012.

I don' think you not being able to find the figures allows you to just guess them. I'll have another look.

Godge wrote: »

Now that includes those who were made redundant more than once so the actual number of private sector workers who weren't made redundant at all would be over 92-93%.

Again, another assumption on your part.

Godge wrote: »

11% over four years is close enough to the 10% I arrived at via another method and still a long way from 20-30% being common.

Was there something wrong with the way I tackled your points in my previous post? Any reason why you did not respond?

Since the argument you were having with the previous poster was down to redundancy - technically self employed or those on shorter rolling contracts do not apply.

However, I don't think you dispute the fact that their employment / businesses ended on a compulsory basis?

25-01-2013 01:38PM

frankosw wrote: »

Course i did but i worked all teh waythrough my degree and then took the first job i could get when it was finished...frying fish in a restuarant...washing pots in a hotel,retail,delicatessan,salesman,decorator,i've done them all and there was *no* job i thought was beneath me.

Your generalising a lot, your post gave out about highly qualified graduates thinking jobs were beneath them, yet they applied for the very same positions otherwise you wouldn't of seen their cv's???? A bit confused.

frankosw · 25-01-2013 01:40PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Welfare System like our PS pay rates that are the bigges iussue in this country and which are draging the economy down.

If

So 21 grand per anum for a degree-qualified nurse is dragging the economy down?

There are people on the dole with a couple of kids who pocket double that in net pay.

road_high · 25-01-2013 01:41PM

noodler wrote: »

Someone call the Data Protection Commissioner.

My thoughts exactly. If I read that right, somebody working in HR in the PS has just posted here that 30% of applicants are Irish for some part time job. What part of "Private and Confidential" do they misunderstand

Well I guess they are unsackable!!

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments