Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Scofflaw · 25-01-2013 11:43PM

tayto lover wrote: »

A Garda has been shot dead near to where i live tonight doing his duty and we have lads here who never did anything dangerous in their lives talking drivel about how to cut his wages. Shame on them.

Condolences to his wife and two young children.

1 week ban for this on top of the recent posts. Using the death of a Garda to score points in a debate...consider yourself lucky this isn't a permaban.

moderately unimpressed,
Scofflaw

Celticfire · 25-01-2013 11:45PM

Boombastic wrote: »

that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Current staff forced to sign, or signed out

Boombastic wrote: »

For instance in the gardai, existing ones have 2 years to decide if they wish to resign their contracts. In the mean time the recruitment embargo is lifted immediately and recruitment is started again on the new terms and conditions. People on part time and short contracts will be given the opportunity to sign up for the new contracts.

You're not very consistent. Does everybody get two years? You didn't use the word decide you said forced, not quite the same thing.

K-9 · 25-01-2013 11:55PM

Just a reminder to everybody of our charter:

This is a Politics sub-forum, not Liveline.

Certain standards of debate are expected, and will be enforced. Your posts must contribute to debate, not derail it or drag it into mob chanting. There's been a serious decrease in the signal to noise ratio in the forum recently, and that trend requires reversal.

If your posts consists of little more than a statement that some group of people or other are bad people and/or deserve prison/execution as traitors, think long and hard before pressing "submit", because we'll be treating that as trolling from here on in.

If your OP consists of nothing more than a two-line thought that just popped into your head, don't start a thread. Again, that will be treated as trolling - the thread will be deleted, and you'll be banned or infracted, depending on how egregious the example is.

This forum is not a newsdump, blog or somewhere to post copy & pastes from other sites. All OP's and posts require some input of your own.

Thread derailing will be treated particularly harshly. If there's more than a couple of examples of a poster taking an unrelated thread and turning it into a public-versus-private / unionists-versus-nationalists / us-versus-them contest, then expect a sanction.

If you find you absolutely cannot post without using the term 'scumbags' or 'scum', don't bother to post, because you'll find yourself infracted, or, in case of persistent offenders, banned. Those terms are now in the same penalty box as 'beards', 'teabaggers' etc. Please see the post below for the full, but not exhaustive list of prohibited terms.

No personal abuse or getting too personal (i.e., challenge the post, not the poster).

No allegations of trollery in-thread. It's another form of personal attack.

No trolling or feeding the trolls (including no excuses for joining a flaming match).

No discussion of moderation. If you need clarification of this Charter, or wish to discuss actions taken that pertain to violations, PM the moderator.

Those are specific examples, but the general rule is "contribute to debate or GTFO". If what you're doing isn't discussing politics but competing for the top slot on Joe Duffy, you're in the wrong place.

Also:

This forum is for discussion and debate, we will not tolerate soapboxing. If you are here to "shout everyone down" with your opinions, we will see you as a negative contributor to the forum and will take appropriate action.

3 posters got banned already from the forum because of this thread and numerous cards handed out. I'd suggest reading the above because a few posters are sailing close to bans, the standard of discussion is frankly appalling on this thread, and is a perfect example of what we don't want on the forum.

26-01-2013 12:49AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You asked me for substantive information which shows that people were intrinsically busy

No I didn't. You made a sweeping generalisation about people working in organisations. It could not have been based on any factual data source, because you didn't know who the people were or what organisations you worked for. I didn't ask for substantive information. When I said "How do you know?" I was asking how you could possibly know in the absence of substantive information. Your answer was "because I live in Ireland". You might think that was a clever one-liner, but all it did was demonstrate that you were making a sweeping generalisation in the absence of data.

If you wish to regard that as a mature and rational way to engage in a debate about any aspect of the Irish Economy, good luck with that effort.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Unions used to be brilliant - standing up for the poor man. Here and everywhere else. However, because they operate under the capitalist system of profit as the number one goal, where more members = more profit and wealth is concentrated at the top they are just as bad as the worst capitalist system. The only difference is because of their history they pretend they are the nice guys.

Unions represent their members. If they do anything other than that they are failing the people who pay their wages. That applies to any membership services organisation, and unions are no different. And it does not matter whether a union's members are poor, loaded or anywhere in between; they pay their dues and expect a service, and the job of the union is to give them the service they pay for.

26-01-2013 01:07AM

fliball123 wrote: »

This is the thing you call them rants from the outside looking in I would call it finding some equality. Depends on where your positioned

You're entitled to your view, regardless of where you're positioned.

You said yourself that the thread was supposed to be about CP II. But most of the posts were actually off topic at that point. In fairness, and helped by a moderator intervention, more recent pages have had a little more relevance to CP II.

K-9 · 26-01-2013 01:36AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You're entitled to your view, regardless of where you're positioned.

You said yourself that the thread was supposed to be about CP II. But most of the posts were actually off topic at that point. In fairness, and helped by a moderator intervention, more recent pages have had a little more relevance to CP II.

Just a friendly note here (mods do actually prefer friendly nods in the right direction), that poster was banned and same was posted on the thread. There is little point replying to a banned poster mainly because, well, you aren't going to get a response in the immediate future. Sometimes posters get thread bans and are specifically banned from replying on thread to prevent thread derailment, and general sanity levels.

Godge · 26-01-2013 10:08PM

Boombastic wrote: »

Start recruitment, offer full time permanent jobs. There are thousands of people with all sorts of skills on the dole and in the private sector who would snap up these positions if they became available. Train them where necessary. For example, There is a surplus of teachers in the country wanting a full time job, no shortage, as for the others, recruit new people, from abroad if necessary. 2010 and 2011 nurses will take up the jobs offered.

Doctors- Are they under the CP agreement?
Army - probably can cut numbers there, not exactly a vital service within our country. We need some for moving money etc but call some back from oversea tours / Start recruitment
Clean water? councils, using money from the household charge
Garda-How long is Garda training? 18 month to 2 years, start recruiting and training

Not as many as you think won't sign, if the option they are facing is the dole. They're are no shortage of people to fill most of these areas.

Also too many middle managers and surplus admin. Restructuring is needed in a lot of departments.

Do you know anything about the labour market, employment law, on-the-job training, the public sector or industrial action? It seems like your knowledge of these subjects is akin to a ten-year olds.

Most of your proposals are illegal (not just under Irish law but under EU and international law), the rest are fantasy.

not yet · 27-01-2013 10:38AM

Godge wrote: »

Do you know anything about the labour market, employment law, on-the-job training, the public sector or industrial action? It seems like your knowledge of these subjects is akin to a ten-year olds.

Most of your proposals are illegal (not just under Irish law but under EU and international law), the rest are fantasy.

I'd also like to know, where were all these people who would love a job in the PS DURING THE BOOM.....shall I tell you!! earning better money in the private sector.

As I have said before most of this ps bashing has nothing to do with ''we are broke'' ''we cant keep borrowing to pay ps wages'' it is pure and utter envy and nothing else. Why were these same people not banging on about the ps in the boom, because They had good jobs,paying good wages, but now they want to crucify a PS worker who done nothing else but want to be a nurse,teacher etc.

carpejugulum · 27-01-2013 01:20PM

As for gardai, the only "cut" needed is to get rid of pensions after 30 years of service.

not yet wrote: »

As I have said before most of this ps bashing has nothing to do with ''we are broke'' ''we cant keep borrowing to pay ps wages'' it is pure and utter envy and nothing else. Why were these same people not banging on about the ps in the boom, because They had good jobs,paying good wages, but now they want to crucify a PS worker who done nothing else but want to be a nurse,teacher etc.

Even if it were true, it's irrelevant now.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 27-01-2013 01:54PM

not yet wrote: »

I'd also like to know, where were all these people who would love a job in the PS DURING THE BOOM.....shall I tell you!! earning better money in the private sector.

As I have said before most of this ps bashing has nothing to do with ''we are broke'' ''we cant keep borrowing to pay ps wages'' it is pure and utter envy and nothing else. Why were these same people not banging on about the ps in the boom, because They had good jobs,paying good wages, but now they want to crucify a PS worker who done nothing else but want to be a nurse,teacher etc.

Or because we could afford to pay the PS back then (or at least thought we could:pac: )

And people have always been saying that the public service, or at least certain parts of it, is inefficient. That's not something new.

ballyharpat · 27-01-2013 03:13PM

not yet wrote: »

I'd also like to know, where were all these people who would love a job in the PS DURING THE BOOM.....shall I tell you!! earning better money in the private sector.

As I have said before most of this ps bashing has nothing to do with ''we are broke'' ''we cant keep borrowing to pay ps wages'' it is pure and utter envy and nothing else. Why were these same people not banging on about the ps in the boom, because They had good jobs,paying good wages, but now they want to crucify a PS worker who done nothing else but want to be a nurse,teacher etc.

I would have taken any job I could get in the public, ir semi state, so would many others.

From what I saw-I was in the USA for 10 years, so missed a lot of it- there were 'some' in the building trade, that were making a lot of money, many of them were not though, the regular carpenter or labourer working for someone was not seeing a lot of money per hour, maybe a lot of they worked 70 hrs per week, The realtors were making big money, probably a few more. But for the main part, you had hotel workers, health care assistants in the private sector, retail assistants, supermarket shelf stackers etc. these were not making a lot of money. Why wasn't the bench marking done against the wages of these people?

Now these people that were making big money are not making big money, they are not paying the amount in tax that they were paying, so the taxes they are paying are not sufficient to keep the "Public Sector' in the high rate of pay they became accustomed to during the boom.

Many tradesmen have dropped the prices they charge by 50% or more and are still not able to make an income in this climate, can the 'Public Sector' say the same? they have taken 'some' minor cuts and P**ed and moaned kicking and screaming and are refusing to give an inch, even if the country is going down the swanny-wake up call, anyone? Step out of your bubble for a few minutes please....

After working for someone else for 7 years, I started my own business, I was making 3-4 times per week more than I am now, that lasted for over two years and then I came home, I still had work, but I know that nothing lasts forever, so I made hay while the sun shone....

There were not jobs for everyone in the public sector, and for many jobs, it was not what you know, but who you know-In my experience.

barneystinson · 27-01-2013 03:57PM

ballyharpat wrote: »

There were not jobs for everyone in the public sector, and for many jobs, it was not what you know, but who you know-In my experience.

Sorry but you'll have to back that up and elaborate on your experience!

As someone who's competed a couple of times successfully for jobs in the PS comments like that are extremely insulting.

barneystinson · 27-01-2013 04:02PM

ballyharpat wrote: »

After working for someone else for 7 years, I started my own business, I was making 3-4 times per week more than I am now, that lasted for over two years and then I came home, I still had work, but I know that nothing lasts forever, so I made hay while the sun shone....

And the relevance of that little insight into how great and shrewd you are, to CPA2 is what exactly?

thebman · 27-01-2013 04:03PM

not yet wrote: »

I'd also like to know, where were all these people who would love a job in the PS DURING THE BOOM.....shall I tell you!! earning better money in the private sector.

As I have said before most of this ps bashing has nothing to do with ''we are broke'' ''we cant keep borrowing to pay ps wages'' it is pure and utter envy and nothing else. Why were these same people not banging on about the ps in the boom, because They had good jobs,paying good wages, but now they want to crucify a PS worker who done nothing else but want to be a nurse,teacher etc.

It isn't envy, most likely your the one with the agenda.

Everyone else seems to agree something needs to be done about PS pay at this stage including the only people who matter since they pay the bills by lending the money to the government.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1015/1224325260419.html

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/leaked-files-suggest-troika-want-public-sector-pay-cuts-580809.html

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/01/21/irel-j21.html

But go on living the bubble and trying to claim everyone else is envious... The very fact that you think they have something to be envious is enough of an admission for me that you know the score yourself and are just pushing an agenda.

And lots of people applied for jobs in the PS during the boom but the reality is pay and conditions is only one factor when people choose what jobs to apply for and it depends on the individual the weighting it has.

ballyharpat · 27-01-2013 04:08PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Sorry but you'll have to back that up and elaborate on your experience!

As someone who's competed a couple of times successfully for jobs in the PS comments like that are extremely insulting.

Sorry that you find it insulting-in my experience-many of the clerical jobs were given to sons/daughters of teachers/public servants, obviously jobs like nurses, teachers etc. were given to those with the necessary qualifications. The local council jobs were given to sons/daughters of those already working in the department. We ee Nepotism all the time in the Public service, td's hiring their wives. Jackie Healy Gombeen, when in the dail 'negotiating re the bailout of the country, was actually working out a position for his niece, in exchange for his vote, again, this is only my experience, maybe not yours, but then you haven't had my experiences, hence-'In MY experience'

ballyharpat · 27-01-2013 04:10PM

barneystinson wrote: »

And the relevance of that little insight into how great and shrewd you are, to CPA2 is what exactly?

The relevance is that when the private sector was making money, we could pay the taxes to fund large wages for the public sector, when we are not making large money, cutbacks have to be made....

Godge · 27-01-2013 05:50PM

ballyharpat wrote: »

Sorry that you find it insulting-in my experience-many of the clerical jobs were given to sons/daughters of teachers/public servants, obviously jobs like nurses, teachers etc. were given to those with the necessary qualifications. The local council jobs were given to sons/daughters of those already working in the department. We ee Nepotism all the time in the Public service, td's hiring their wives. Jackie Healy Gombeen, when in the dail 'negotiating re the bailout of the country, was actually working out a position for his niece, in exchange for his vote, again, this is only my experience, maybe not yours, but then you haven't had my experiences, hence-'In MY experience'

This type of rubbish comes up time and again on discussion boards. Each time I direct the relevant poster to the following website.

http://www.cpsa.ie/Home.aspx?SID=4&SSID=0&Language=en

I then challenge them to produce any private sector employer with better practices and procedures. That usually is the end of the debate, the private sector is riddled with nepotism, just look at the top of Dunnes Stores, the top of Independent Newspapers and you will find sons, daughters, brothers etc.

carpejugulum · 27-01-2013 05:53PM

ballyharpat wrote: »

The relevance is that when the private sector was making money, we could pay the taxes to fund large wages for the public sector, when we are not making large money, cutbacks have to be made....

And even back then it was economically and morally wrong.

AlexisM · 27-01-2013 06:04PM

Godge wrote: »

.. the private sector is riddled with nepotism, just look at the top of Dunnes Stores, the top of Independent Newspapers and you will find sons, daughters, brothers etc.

So what? Unless you are a shareholder of the private company, that is none of your business. Margaret Heffernan (Dunnes Stores) could hire a relative on €500K pa to make her a cup of tea each morning and it would be nothing to do with you or me. The public sector is 'owned' by the Irish people so we are allowed to be interested parties in how our money is spent.

ballyharpat · 27-01-2013 06:13PM

AlexisM wrote: »

So what? Unless you are a shareholder of the private company, that is none of your business. Margaret Heffernan (Dunnes Stores) could hire a relative on €500K pa to make her a cup of tea each morning and it would be nothing to do with you or me. The public sector is 'owned' by the Irish people so we are allowed to be interested parties in how our money is spent.

Was just going to say the exact same thing, if I want to hire a secretary, I can choose my daughtr or choose someone with the best qualifications, that's no-ones business but mine, If the post is a public position, then it should be open to the public and given to whoever is best up to the job, not a relative of whoever is doing the hiring, it's not their money that is paying the wages, it is the tax-payers money....

Vizzy · 27-01-2013 07:06PM

ballyharpat wrote: »

Was just going to say the exact same thing, if I want to hire a secretary, I can choose my daughtr or choose someone with the best qualifications, that's no-ones business but mine, If the post is a public position, then it should be open to the public and given to whoever is best up to the job, not a relative of whoever is doing the hiring, it's not their money that is paying the wages, it is the tax-payers money....

And if that person happens to be a relative of the person doing the hiring,what then ?

Also,in my experience,in 30 years in the public service and being on both sides of the interview table,I have never come across a situation where an interviewee is interviewed by one of their relatives.

ballyharpat · 27-01-2013 07:51PM

Vizzy wrote: »

And if that person happens to be a relative of the person doing the hiring,what then ?

Also,in my experience,in 30 years in the public service and being on both sides of the interview table,I have never come across a situation where an interviewee is interviewed by one of their relatives.

You haven't heard about the TD's hiring daughters/wives as personal assistants? Nepotism involves more that being relatives....being the daughter of the local headmaster-sure she's a shoe in for the job, aww sure he's the local councillors son, let's give him the job......

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's rampant in rural Ireland.

Godge · 27-01-2013 08:37PM

ballyharpat wrote: »

You haven't heard about the TD's hiring daughters/wives as personal assistants? Nepotism involves more that being relatives....being the daughter of the local headmaster-sure she's a shoe in for the job, aww sure he's the local councillors son, let's give him the job......

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's rampant in rural Ireland.

Name and shame or this is just made-up rubbish slandering people.

Godge · 27-01-2013 08:40PM

AlexisM wrote: »

So what? Unless you are a shareholder of the private company, that is none of your business. Margaret Heffernan (Dunnes Stores) could hire a relative on €500K pa to make her a cup of tea each morning and it would be nothing to do with you or me. The public sector is 'owned' by the Irish people so we are allowed to be interested parties in how our money is spent.

Yes, but while I can name the Dunnes who got jobs from their daddy or the Quinns and O'Reilly's who do likewise along with hundreds of small businesses who give jobs to friends and relatives, nobody can come up with one example of where the CPSA oversees a recruitment process and there is nepotism in it. If you are so sure of what you and others are saying, name the State body, name the Department.

P.S. The hiring by TDs of personal assistants is one small area which is not covered by the CPSA.

Godge · 27-01-2013 08:48PM

ballyharpat wrote: »

I would have taken any job I could get in the public, ir semi state, so would many others.

From what I saw-I was in the USA for 10 years, so missed a lot of it- there were 'some' in the building trade, that were making a lot of money, many of them were not though, the regular carpenter or labourer working for someone was not seeing a lot of money per hour, maybe a lot of they worked 70 hrs per week, The realtors were making big money, probably a few more. But for the main part, you had hotel workers, health care assistants in the private sector, retail assistants, supermarket shelf stackers etc. these were not making a lot of money. Why wasn't the bench marking done against the wages of these people?

Now these people that were making big money are not making big money, they are not paying the amount in tax that they were paying, so the taxes they are paying are not sufficient to keep the "Public Sector' in the high rate of pay they became accustomed to during the boom.

Many tradesmen have dropped the prices they charge by 50% or more and are still not able to make an income in this climate, can the 'Public Sector' say the same? they have taken 'some' minor cuts and P**ed and moaned kicking and screaming and are refusing to give an inch, even if the country is going down the swanny-wake up call, anyone? Step out of your bubble for a few minutes please....

After working for someone else for 7 years, I started my own business, I was making 3-4 times per week more than I am now, that lasted for over two years and then I came home, I still had work, but I know that nothing lasts forever, so I made hay while the sun shone....

There were not jobs for everyone in the public sector, and for many jobs, it was not what you know, but who you know-In my experience.

Well, if you were living in the USA for ten years, you are hardly well-placed to comment on what happened in the boom or since.

For what it is worth, it is quite simple when it comes to tradesmen. I and others might have less money to get things done around the house but I can tell you that there are some tradesmen still making a good living. They are the ones who gave me a good deal in the boom time and did a good job. The cowboys who overcharged and underperformed are the ones who are gone to the wall because they were found out. They are also likely to be the ones complaining on discussion boards about the public sector.

I am glad I no longer work in the public sector - the unwarranted abuse and rubbish coming from the Indo and the Mail as well as on discussion boards like this would be demoralising.

Farmer Pudsey · 27-01-2013 08:51PM

Where this nepotism really shows is when tempory or shortterm work is available and especially when this may lead to a fulltime job down the line.

In tempory jobs where it is for summer or holiday work a relative or a friend(not always) often seems to get these jobs. This also happens where someone is need to fill a tempory position and then he/she get the next tempory work ans so on until he/she ends up full time and down the line with a secure job.

In reality in any small or large family run buisness family members will be employed as down the line they may well be the owners. However if these workers do not preform it is the owner that loses out not the taxpayer.

What happened in Independant newspapers where Gavin O'Reilly suceeded his father Dr Sir Tony could also be considered as nepotism and pension funds and private investors lost out because of a fued with Denis O'Brien. This is a reason why Irish people are slow to invest in pensions ans are also slow to invest in shares in some Irish Companies which seems to be ran as personel empires for the good of senior managment.

However in reality there will always be nepotism it is near impossible to prevent. Guards sons daughters nephews or necies always seem to manage to get into the guards if they apply as long as they have minimum qualifications, the same with health staff however in some cases people have to have a specific quilification before nepotism can come into play such as some form of a medical (Nursing Doctor etc) buisness (Accountancy etc) .

It is not somthing that I get overly worked up about in reality life is not ment to be fair and anyone that thinks it is fair is deluding themselves.

Farmer Pudsey · 27-01-2013 08:57PM

Vizzy wrote: »

And if that person happens to be a relative of the person doing the hiring,what then ?

Also,in my experience,in 30 years in the public service and being on both sides of the interview table,I have never come across a situation where an interviewee is interviewed by one of their relatives.

How are you Tom great day is it not listen my neice Joan is doing an interview for one of them clerical positions tomorrow that you are doing she is a great worker wink wink nod nod.

And this could happen both inside and outside the PS.

not yet · 27-01-2013 09:01PM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Or because we could afford to pay the PS back then (or at least thought we could:pac: )

And people have always been saying that the public service, or at least certain parts of it, is inefficient. That's not something new.

Yes I agree with ''parts'' of. So why do ISME, IBEC THE INDO AND Eddie fculking Hobbs want to cut the average PS worker. They need to sort out professors on 250k consultants 250k etc etc......But do these people not understand cutting Teachers and nurses etc serves no purpose other then keep the whingers happy.

Vizzy · 27-01-2013 09:15PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

How are you Tom great day is it not listen my neice Joan is doing an interview for one of them clerical positions tomorrow that you are doing she is a great worker wink wink nod nod.

And this could happen both inside and outside the PS.

Ya,Pudsey,I'll certainly give her every chance to shine at the interview.
But as you know there will be another 2 people on the interview board so if she is as good a worker as you say,well she has every chance.
But if she doesn't score well on the marking scheme( the results of which are available to each candidate) she hasn't a hope.Sorry !!
BTW you seem to have something wrong with one of your eyes.I'd get that looked at

;)

fall · 27-01-2013 09:17PM

So cut the wages and then people will pay their mortgages with what? I have family in both sectors. In the boom the average joe in construction was raking it in and I know numerous people including family members who will confirm that. The majority of my friends in the private sector (eg banking in the ifsc, pharmaceuticals, computers) have not lost their jobs and quite a number are still receiving bonuses and twice yearly reviews. Certain sectors were badly hit namely construction and property. If you cut the wages of a family with two public sector employees or one public sector and one unemployed the rate of people who can't pay their mortgages will increase. It is a fact that schools could not get staff in the boom. I know of the same job advertised over and over again because nobody adequately qualified applied.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments