Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

ardmacha · 16-05-2013 10:33PM

"No cuts" is not an option on the table. The government is clear the cuts will happen, the public sector gets to choose how they happen and that's the basis of the negotiation.

So there's no gun on the table,

I think someone interested in discussion would not post the above.
There is a coercion here, the result is predetermined, it is pointless to deny that.

sharper · 16-05-2013 10:38PM

skafish wrote: »

But only because they don't have the balls to stand up to the Trioka, or the wit to find the money elsewhere.

Stand up to the troika is nice rhetoric but they're funding our deficit.

For example, having the government parties keep their pre election promises; and capping salaries as promises.

How much will that save?

If it does save money then why should that saving be consumed by the public sector and not go to the taxpayer that's funding it all. Do you see the problem? You see savings elsewhere versus pay cuts as either/or.

sharper · 16-05-2013 10:41PM

ardmacha wrote: »

I think someone interested in discussion would not post the above.

Why? Because you disagree with it? Only opinions you agree with should be discussed?

I posted quite politely stating a very reasonable and entirely non controversial opinion - that the cuts will happen one way or the other and that this is an unchangeable reality.

There is a coercion here, the result is predetermined, it is pointless to deny that.

I didn't deny anything, I stated outright the cuts will happen. The stated purpose of the negotiations is how achieve cuts. "Let's not have any cuts at all" is not an acceptable outcome of the negotiations and is not and never has been an option on the table.

Pfizer workers can't choose to not lose their jobs either.

skafish · 16-05-2013 10:44PM

sharper wrote: »

If it does save money then why should that saving be consumed by the public sector and not go to the taxpayer that's funding it all. Do you see the problem? You see savings elsewhere versus pay cuts as either/or.

Of course it is. This whole mess started because the Trioka demanded an extra €1B in savings. Enda et al decided to pick what they hoped would be the easy option, and as a bonus they thought the PS would accept the decimation of terms and conditions of employment far beyond what is needed to achieve the €1B.

noodler · 16-05-2013 10:45PM

creedp wrote: »

I think the highlighted text is important here and indeed youare entitled to your opinion. Most reasonable people would have no difficulty understanding that a deal agreed in June 2010 was effective from that date. There was never any issue about it being back dated to the 1st January 2010. Even if there was, the paycuts are being scheduled for 1st July 2013, six months ahead of when CP would be set to expire.

This is an argument about nothing and is being pursued purely for the purposes of being argumentative .. if people can't even agree that a 4 year deal commencing in June 2010 ends in June 2014 then there is simply no point in continuing.

There have been no pay cuts since January 2010 on the otherhand.

CP1 only came from the industrial action arising from those paycuts.

ardmacha · 16-05-2013 10:48PM

I posted quite politely stating a very reasonable and entirely non controversial opinion - that the cuts will happen one way or the other and that this is an unchangeable reality.

You posted this, and then stated that there was not a gun on the table, which is untrue. A post with complete contradiction does not contribute to useful discussion.

sharper · 16-05-2013 10:50PM

skafish wrote: »

Of course it is. This whole mess started because the Trioka demanded an extra €1B in savings. Enda et al decided to pick what they hoped would be the easy option, and as a bonus they thought the PS would accept the decimation of terms and conditions of employment far beyond what is needed to achieve the €1B.

It really isn't.

If you're labouring the impression cuts can be avoided then you're just heading for disappointment. The Irish economy cannot support current spending levels and neither the troika nor the bond markets will fund it either.

I keep going back to "The money isn't there". If the money is there you have a shot at negotiating for it. You can't get the government to give you money it doesn't have by any means.

Money saved elsewhere doesn't belong to the public sector, it belongs to the Irish taxpayer. It's not an either/or choice.

Money will be saved elsewhere, taxes will increase and public sector pay will be cut. That's the reality we're all living in.

sharper · 16-05-2013 10:53PM

ardmacha wrote: »

You posted this, and then stated that there was not a gun on the table, which is untrue. Someone willing to tolerate complete contradiction in their own posts does not contribute to useful discussion.

The purpose of the negotiations (i.e. why everyone is sitting at the table) is how to implement cuts to public sector pay cuts.

Your characterisation of the stated reason everyone is negotiating in the first place is as "a gun on the table".

I find that contradictory but I simply think you're wrong and argue for why I think you're wrong, I don't question your motives.

What is it you want to happen? Should the government pretend the cuts might not happen? They absolutely will. The next round of funding is riding on them.

creedp · 16-05-2013 11:02PM

noodler wrote: »

There have been no pay cuts since January 2010 on the otherhand.

CP1 only came from the industrial action arising from those paycuts.

Don't understand your point here. Its irrelevant when the last pay cut happenned, what is relevant is when CP came into effect and its pretty reasonable to assume it came into effect from the date it was agreed rather than some arbitrary date conjured to support an argument.

ardmacha · 16-05-2013 11:13PM

Your characterisation of the stated reason everyone is negotiating in the first place is as "a gun on the table".

So lets agree that there is a gun on the table.
Then useful discussion can proceed from there.

Godge · 17-05-2013 12:27AM

sharper wrote: »

Why? Because you disagree with it? Only opinions you agree with should be discussed?

I posted quite politely stating a very reasonable and entirely non controversial opinion - that the cuts will happen one way or the other and that this is an unchangeable reality.

I didn't deny anything, I stated outright the cuts will happen. The stated purpose of the negotiations is how achieve cuts. "Let's not have any cuts at all" is not an acceptable outcome of the negotiations and is not and never has been an option on the table.

Pfizer workers can't choose to not lose their jobs either.

You are making one very big assumption. You are assuming that the government will have the votes in the Dail to get legislation through cutting public service pay and that they will subsequently not back down when the INTO cleverly closes primary schools in a way that the government cannot take them off the payroll.

Whether you like it or not, there is an alternative possibility of strikes forcing the government to back down, just because you don't want it to happen, doesn't mean it will happen.

Once again, to return to a theme I mention generally, the willingness to stick together is greater in the public sector than in the private sector. How much may yet be tested. Consider if all Pfizer workers worldwide downed tools in support of their Cork colleagues. Would it save the jobs? It doesn't happen because the multinational model is designed to pit one part of the company against another in bidding for investment. Intel are the best at it but others too.

Going back to your post, it is inflamatory in the context of this discussion to say that it is an entirely non-controversial opinion to say the cuts will happen or to say "I stated outright the cuts will happen" because we still have a lot of re-ballots happen even if agreement is reached.

Godge · 17-05-2013 12:30AM

sharper wrote: »

It really isn't.

If you're labouring the impression cuts can be avoided then you're just heading for disappointment. The Irish economy cannot support current spending levels and neither the troika nor the bond markets will fund it either.

I keep going back to "The money isn't there". If the money is there you have a shot at negotiating for it. You can't get the government to give you money it doesn't have by any means.

Money saved elsewhere doesn't belong to the public sector, it belongs to the Irish taxpayer. It's not an either/or choice.

Money will be saved elsewhere, taxes will increase and public sector pay will be cut. That's the reality we're all living in.

It is silly to say that there are no alternatives. €1bn is wanted in cuts next year, that is off the gross bill before tax, USC etc., about €400m in net terms i.e. in savings to the taxpayer. A cut of less than 20% to child benefit (€2.2bn) would achieve the same result. It just means a different political choice.

Godge · 17-05-2013 12:33AM

sarumite wrote: »

Like I said, reading a newspaper on a DART doesn't lend itself to reading additional reports.

However, the point about gender equality is that it is a very specific characteristic of Nordic countries and is a result of governmental policies. Taking maternity leave as an example, in Ireland the government has legislated for 3 months however gives its own workers an additional premium of an extra 3 months. In Sweden maternity leave is legislated for everyone (regardless of private or pubic sector) to about 1 year. Furthermore in Ireland we do not have dedicated "parent days" that parents can use if their child is ill, whereas in Sweden they are present for anyone regardless of whether they are public or private sector. In Ireland we do not provide access to state funded childcare, whereas in Sweden it is there. As a result of this, Irish government policy makes it advantageous for woman to work in public sector, whereas in Sweden it doesn't matter as they have the same rights. This creates an equality in Sweden which is absent in Ireland.

on edit: Havent got time to read the links, will get to it later though.

Gender equality in Belgium, Holland and Germany is much higher up the agenda than Ireland. The Scandanavians may be further ahead again.

Godge · 17-05-2013 12:35AM

sharper wrote: »

The point is in relation to the preceding pages of discussion about how well the private sector is doing and that public sector workers should not asked to take more cuts than private sector workers.

Just read today that Bose Ireland are the latest to agree a 2% payrise this year for their employees. Incidentally the same report also stated that they had given the same payrise last year.

vinylbomb · 17-05-2013 02:10AM

Godge wrote: »

OK, take Belgium who all pay their taxes.

http://www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/Tax-fraud-raids-across-Belgium-and-Luxembourg_264959.html[/url]

I'm still waiting for a repudiation of the above please.

As per 98% of your arguments, when something presented as evidence that doesnt suit your argument you conveniently move on.

Please explain your evidence of tax compliance in Belgium.

I am stressing this to show that you fail to evidence ANY argument presented on your part. You simply move on to attack other random points of other posters without sustaining a consistent line of ANYWHERE.

vinylbomb · 17-05-2013 02:14AM

ardmacha wrote: »

So lets agree that there is a gun on the table.
Then useful discussion can proceed from there.

Lets presume we're all reasonable and cognisant of the facts.

Bit of a leap, but lets roll with it.

vinylbomb · 17-05-2013 02:16AM

Godge wrote: »

You are making one very big assumption.

Whether you like it or not, there is an alternative possibility of strikes forcing the government to back down, just because you don't want it to happen, doesn't mean it will happen.

If you go to the well, and the well is empty. Who gets water?

vinylbomb · 17-05-2013 02:24AM

Godge wrote: »

Gender equality in Belgium, Holland and Germany is much higher up the agenda than Ireland. The Scandanavians may be further ahead again.

I don't think you've cottoned on to the fact that we're living in Ireland. Under Irish law. Why not quote gender equality in Brazil or Madagascar.

According to the 2012 Global Gender Gap Report, released on October 23rd by the World Economic Forum - Ireland -5th Best country in the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/global-gender-gap-report-2012-best-worst-countries-women_n_2006395.html#slide=1677298

Please PLEASE bother your arse to anwser this post, and dont move on.
And spare me the denegration because its a Huffington Post link, man up and make a point please.

creedp · 17-05-2013 09:50AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

I don't think you've cottoned on to the fact that we're living in Ireland. Under Irish law. Why not quote gender equality in Brazil or Madagascar.

According to the 2012 Global Gender Gap Report, released on October 23rd by the World Economic Forum - Ireland -5th Best country in the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/global-gender-gap-report-2012-best-worst-countries-women_n_2006395.html#slide=1677298

Please PLEASE bother your arse to anwser this post, and dont move on.
And spare me the denegration because its a Huffington Post link, man up and make a point please.

While you're right of course, that is a pretty good result overall, I just wante to let your know that in the 'Economic Participation and Opportunity' category we did a little less well - ranked 29. However, it also good to know that our best category result was in the 'Political Empowerment' category where we were ranked 6th.

creedp · 17-05-2013 09:51AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

If you go to the well, and the well is empty. Who gets water?

Well this is the 3rd time the Govt are going to this particular well .. eventually that well will almost certaintly run dry.

ardmacha · 17-05-2013 10:32AM

Lets presume we're all reasonable and cognisant of the facts.

I said the government were using threats in negotiations, which seems agreed, and they had acted in bad faith.

They've acted in bad faith because they didn't really make an effort to achieve other savings,it being less trouble for them to just cut wages.

The tragedy is that this unprincipled carryon has moved the PS away from the direction in which it should be moving and that many people welcome this, on the basis that as long as those in the PS are worse off then it is a good thing.

sharper · 17-05-2013 10:55AM

ardmacha wrote: »

So lets agree that there is a gun on the table.
Then useful discussion can proceed from there.

No I don't agree there's a gun on the table and here's why:

What you're trying to say is that there's a threat being made which will be enacted unless the government gets something it wants i.e. agree to X or Y will happen. In that case Y is the gun on the table being used to obtained X.

What's actually happening is the entire purpose of the negotiations is how to implement Y. That Y will happen is not the purpose of the negotiation, it's how to implement Y. Then your position becomes "Agree to Y or Y will happen" which isn't much of a threat.

Using your gun on the table metaphor: The gun is on the table at a meeting which was called to agree how to fire the gun. The whole meeting is about the gun, how to fire the gun, when to fire the gun, where to aim the gun and how many times to fire the gun. In that context the point about the gun on the table becomes meaningless.

The reality is you want an option of no cuts. You want the public sector to be able to make choices they don't have the power to make and agree it with a government that doesn't have the power to make it that's representing a population of people that don't have the power to make it either.

Cuts are completely unavoidable because nobody has to power choose it just as Pfizer workers don't have the power to avoid losing their current jobs.

That's just how the world works sometimes.

Godge · 17-05-2013 11:21AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

http://www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/Tax-fraud-raids-across-Belgium-and-Luxembourg_264959.html[/url]

I'm still waiting for a repudiation of the above please.

As per 98% of your arguments, when something presented as evidence that doesnt suit your argument you conveniently move on.

Please explain your evidence of tax compliance in Belgium.

I am stressing this to show that you fail to evidence ANY argument presented on your part. You simply move on to attack other random points of other posters without sustaining a consistent line of ANYWHERE.

I suggest nothern European countries are more tax compliant. You dispute with one article from a newspaper. OK.

http://repec.org/sce2005/up.4903.1107192974.pdf

Table on page 4 of linked study.

In order of most tax evasion:

Spain, Italy, Greece, Potrugal, Belgium, France, Germany, UK.

They only looked at 8, but the four with most tax avoidance are southern Europe, those with least, northern Europe.

Seeing as you like newspaper articles rather than detailed studies, here is an economist article about tax evasion in Greece:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/09/tax-evasion-greece

Now, to be fair, this study

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/themes/06_shadow_economy.pdf

doesn't show Ireland in a bad light (better than Belgium), however, the general point of southern (and eastern) Europe bad, northern Europe good, holds true.

Godge · 17-05-2013 11:29AM

sharper wrote: »

No I don't agree there's a gun on the table and here's why:

What you're trying to say is that there's a threat being made which will be enacted unless the government gets something it wants i.e. agree to X or Y will happen. In that case Y is the gun on the table being used to obtained X.

What's actually happening is the entire purpose of the negotiations is how to implement Y. That Y will happen is not the purpose of the negotiation, it's how to implement Y. Then your position becomes "Agree to Y or Y will happen" which isn't much of a threat.

Using your gun on the table metaphor: The gun is on the table at a meeting which was called to agree how to fire the gun. The whole meeting is about the gun, how to fire the gun, when to fire the gun, where to aim the gun and how many times to fire the gun. In that context the point about the gun on the table becomes meaningless.

The reality is you want an option of no cuts. You want the public sector to be able to make choices they don't have the power to make and agree it with a government that doesn't have the power to make it that's representing a population of people that don't have the power to make it either.

Cuts are completely unavoidable because nobody has to power choose it just as Pfizer workers don't have the power to avoid losing their current jobs.

That's just how the world works sometimes.

Going back to what I said last night because either you are not listening or not understanding.

Godge wrote: »

You are making one very big assumption. You are assuming that the government will have the votes in the Dail to get legislation through cutting public service pay and that they will subsequently not back down when the INTO cleverly closes primary schools in a way that the government cannot take them off the payroll.

Whether you like it or not, there is an alternative possibility of strikes forcing the government to back down, just because you don't want it to happen, doesn't mean it will happen.

Once again, to return to a theme I mention generally, the willingness to stick together is greater in the public sector than in the private sector. How much may yet be tested. Consider if all Pfizer workers worldwide downed tools in support of their Cork colleagues. Would it save the jobs? It doesn't happen because the multinational model is designed to pit one part of the company against another in bidding for investment. Intel are the best at it but others too.

Going back to your post, it is inflamatory in the context of this discussion to say that it is an entirely non-controversial opinion to say the cuts will happen or to say "I stated outright the cuts will happen" because we still have a lot of re-ballots happen even if agreement is reached.

(1) There are alternative ways to make the savings, it is just the government doesn't want to consider those.
(2) There is no guarantee that the public sector pay cuts would be implemented anyway as the Labour deputies would have to vote for it.

sharper · 17-05-2013 11:33AM

Godge wrote: »

(1) There are alternative ways to make the savings, it is just the government doesn't want to consider those.

There is no reason at all those alternate savings belong to the public sector. They belong to the taxpayer.

As I have already stated any alternative you can think up will also have to be pursued, there is no either/or.

It's not either tax increases or public sector cuts. Both will have to happen.

It's not either reductions in social welfare spending or public sector cuts. Both will have to happen.

It's not either cuts in spending elsewhere or public sector cuts. Both will have to happen.

sharper · 17-05-2013 11:35AM

Godge wrote: »

doesn't show Ireland in a bad light (better than Belgium), however, the general point of southern (and eastern) Europe bad, northern Europe good, holds true.

In other words you can't find a single piece of support for your position that tax evasion is a problem is Ireland (much less your ridiculous assertion if this evaded tax were collected there would be no need for cuts) so we're back to "common sense".

creedp · 17-05-2013 11:54AM

sharper wrote: »

In other words you can't find a single piece of support for your position that tax evasion is a problem is Ireland (much less your ridiculous assertion if this evaded tax were collected there would be no need for cuts) so we're back to "common sense".

Just one tiny example to keep you going - http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/contractors-to-meet-revenue-in-bid-to-stamp-out-tax-evading-operators-231518.html

And a more general view http://www.thejournal.ie/revenue-figures-2012-741230-Jan2013/

sharper · 17-05-2013 11:59AM

creedp wrote: »

Just one tiny example to keep you going - http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/contractors-to-meet-revenue-in-bid-to-stamp-out-tax-evading-operators-231518.html

Nobody said tax evasion is non-existent

sarumite · 17-05-2013 12:11PM

Godge wrote: »

In order of most tax evasion:

Spain, Italy, Greece, Potrugal, Belgium, France, Germany, UK.

They only looked at 8, but the four with most tax avoidance are southern Europe, those with least, northern Europe.

That is a very myopic look at the table.

Portugal 0.190
Belgium 0.184
France 0.130

Are you seriously grouping Belgium (your example country from the eurozone) with France et. al. based on evasion parameters?

Godge · 17-05-2013 12:28PM

sharper wrote: »

There is no reason at all those alternate savings belong to the public sector. They belong to the taxpayer.

As I have already stated any alternative you can think up will also have to be pursued, there is no either/or.

It's not either tax increases or public sector cuts. Both will have to happen.

It's not either reductions in social welfare spending or public sector cuts. Both will have to happen.

It's not either cuts in spending elsewhere or public sector cuts. Both will have to happen.

Sorry, let us get this clear, the government needs to reduce the budget deficit. That is the only requirement that cannot be changed.

It has a range of measures to choose from. It has chosen public sector pay, that choice can be changed, how you do not understand this is beyond me.

I have shown already that a 20% cut in child benefit saves more in net terms on the deficit than a €1 bn cut in public service pay. To say that public sector pay cuts will have to happen is simply an opinion, a view, a belief, a wish of yours, but it is not an inevitability.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments