Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Do you support the Dublin Bus workers?

1…2223252728…42

Comments

  • #722
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    end of the road wrote: »
    [quote=Frank Black
    They cost ordinary workers and the general Dublin economy money
    [/quote]
    very little, and for that i say, good
    [/quote]

    What a horrible, selfish attitude. If you believe you have a grievance with Dublin Bus and you want to fight with them, then so be it, they're your employer.

    But if you want to lash out and inflict as much hurt as you can on wider society so that you can get your own way, then frankly you're a miserable sod.

    You thing its "good" that unrelated third parties lost out. That businesses were disrupted, that joe soaps couldnt get to town, that stuggling families had to fork out on taxis to bring kids to the doctor?!

    If you had thought of them as unavoidable casualties that would be an opinion people could disagree with but understand. That you think of it as good, paints you as a worthless spoiled brat. I didnt get my way, so all the toys OUT OF THE PRAM.
    the only people who still think its the celtic tiger are those who wouldn't support them and who would turn on any other worker for trying to protect some of what they have

    Actually, the figures and recommendations are all publicly available.
    Dublin Bus wants to cut salary and wages back to pre Celtic Tiger levels, and the unions want to retain 2008 levels of pay.
    no they won't, if our boys and girls in the public sector have to go out on strike they will do so, much of the public are to weak to do anything about their bad situations, they will sit there and take it, yet complain when those that can stand up do so.
    I understand that it is in my best interest that my employer remains in business. I do not have a "get the rest of the country to bail me out" mentality :cool:


  • #723
    Eoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,279 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Name any other group representing the public that can exercise as much political power as the unions did the last few days - there is not one.

    Sorry, can we just nip this in the bud.

    They are not representing or fighting on behalf of "the public". The public did not gain anything over the last 3 days, and won't gain anything if the reductions in perks are not implemented.


  • #724
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You're just engaging in pedantry and nitpicking here - they are de-facto a public service, they are owned by government so this is a ridiculous exercise in point-scoring.

    The rest is the usual 'greedy public workers' bollocks.
    The only "bollocks" being spouted is by you.
    Pity you lack the maturity to acknowledge that your "public service" claim was bollocks, they are not now nor ever been a public service, they are supposed to be a commercial enterprise.


  • #725
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    end of the road wrote: »
    if it has to happen then so be it, i'm surprised anyone can afford a foreign holiday in this current climate

    I'm almost embarrassed on your behalf for holding such views.

    It is instructive though to be able to see the hive mindset which operates in these kinds of unionised workplaces.

    Strikes need public support to succeed. Yours had none.
    Now, when you're finished your little tantrum, we'd like you to get your snouts out of the trough of public money you've been merrily guzzling for the last few years and join the rest of us over here in the real world.


  • #726
    roozer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35 ✭roozer


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, it must be kept at all costs to ensure that all communities in dublin have a vital social service meaning they can get to employment and all the places they will need to go to do with school college or employment, this must happen at all costs,

    hold on a second, you dont give a sh!t about inconveniencing the public with this strike and in the previous example you wouldnt give a sh!t about air travellers being inconvenienced but all of a sudden because it suits you, you are very concerned that all communities in Dublin have a vital social service and can get to employment!


  • Advertisement
  • #727
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    sugar_fiend wrote: »
    more leftist theory whereby only the private sector can be capable of greed , surely if tickets come down in price due to deregulation , the so called vulnerable will be more able to afford to get the bus

    the same thing was said when Ryanair made life difficult for aer lingus twenty year ago , " oh Ryanair are all about profit "

    yeah and aer lingus used to charge 500 pound for a Dublin to London flight
    They had to, because they were hugely overstaffed and there staff were on huge wages for doing feck all. If it wasn't for competition Aer Lingus would still be costing the country a fortune just to keep the staff noses in the trough!


  • #728
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    No, they mean austerity doesn't work.

    It is backed by nobody other than ideologues, financial interests who benefit from the destruction of the economy and sale of state assets/services (affording them new rent-seeking opportunities upon the public), and useful idiots in print/news/online, who don't have the first fúcking clue about economics, but lionize impossible-to-achieve 'free markets' with religious fervour.

    How about social democratic paradise Sweden. They backed austerity in response to a housing bust when faced with high unemployment and a deficit that was 15% of gdp.
    Why on earth do you think almost the entire right-wing network of political/economic ideology is founded almost entirely by think-tanks, funded by massive corporations/billionaires, like the Koch brothers? It is because they profit from it enormously, at the expense of the rest of society.

    Well who do you expect to fund think-thanks promoting markets and privatization, public sector unions? Turkeys don't promote Christmas.


  • #729
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Stabshauptmann wrote: »
    What a horrible, selfish attitude. If you believe you have a grievance with Dublin Bus and you want to fight with them, then so be it, they're your employer.

    But if you want to lash out and inflict as much hurt as you can on wider society so that you can get your own way, then frankly you're a miserable sod.

    You thing its "good" that unrelated third parties lost out. That businesses were disrupted, that joe soaps couldnt get to town, that stuggling families had to fork out on taxis to bring kids to the doctor?!

    If you had thought of them as unavoidable casualties that would be an opinion people could disagree with but understand. That you think of it as good, paints you as a worthless spoiled brat. I didnt get my way, so all the toys OUT OF THE PRAM.
    Yes well done taking him out of context - he said 'good' that it cost the public so little.

    You're the one espousing a petty/selfish view, that workers should desist from exercising the right to strike, to avoid your own inconvenience.
    Stabshauptmann wrote: »
    I understand that it is in my best interest that my employer remains in business. I do not have a "get the rest of the country to bail me out" mentality :cool:
    Don't be stupid, you don't 'bail out' a de-facto public company - public services are not there to turn a profit, in many cases they exist because providing an adequate public service is unprofitable.


  • #730
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Eoin wrote: »
    Sorry, can we just nip this in the bud.

    They are not representing or fighting on behalf of "the public". The public did not gain anything over the last 3 days, and won't gain anything if the reductions in perks are not implemented.
    I did not say they represent 'the public', they represent their workers - that does not mean they can not cooperate with other unions and organizations, in the public favour.

    I said, point out any other organization with as much political clout among the public, as the unions - with the Irish publics open disparagement towards protesting, you won't find any other organizations which can exert as much political power in favour of workers and the public, as the unions.

    The Irish public loses, whenever any cuts are made in public expenditure (whether that be brought about directly, or by forcing de-facto public services to work from profits), as a public sector deficit, is by definition, a private sector surplus - a private sector that is starved of money at the moment.

    You don't need taxes to fund a deficit either. Europe is more than capable of providing ample stimulus for all of Europe, and the encroachment of cuts upon these public services, is another continued exertion of failed austerity policies, that are ensuring the crisis lasts longer and is far more damaging, than enacting available alternative policies.


  • #731
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Yes well done taking him out of context - he said 'good' that it cost the public so little.

    You're the one espousing a petty/selfish view, that workers should desist from exercising the right to strike, to avoid your own inconvenience.


    Don't be stupid, you don't 'bail out' a de-facto public company - public services are not there to turn a profit, in many cases they exist because providing an adequate public service is unprofitable.

    Again the lie is peddled that Dublin Bus is a public service, it ios not a public service it is a Commercial Semi-State Company.
    Poster will have us believe that we are all entitled to free shopping at Tescos and Dunnes next, after all we have a right to eat and provision of food is a "public service".


  • Advertisement
  • #732
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    The only "bollocks" being spouted is by you.
    Pity you lack the maturity to acknowledge that your "public service" claim was bollocks, they are not now nor ever been a public service, they are supposed to be a commercial enterprise.
    They are owned by the state, that is a de-facto public service - your claim that they are not is based on pedantry/nitpicking.

    When something is moved into a company still 100% owned by the state, it doesn't magically stop being a public service.


  • #733
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I did not say they represent 'the public', they represent their workers .

    They represent their members, but let's not quibble.


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    you won't find any other organizations which can exert as much political power in favour of workers and the public, as the unions..
    Well, you've already admitted they don't represent the public - just the narrow self interest of their members - now the Unions are suddenly wielding political power in favour of 'the public'.
    Who is 'the public' anyway? I didn't realise we could all be grouped together so easily that a body which is only interested in its own members was able to represent our interests. Amazing really, in the history of the planet no political party has ever managed 100% public support, but an unelected private members club is able to effectivly do so?
    You my friend, are talking bollox.... which brings me to....

    KyussBishop wrote: »
    The Irish public loses, whenever any cuts are made in public expenditure..

    I rest my case.....

    oh wait, hang on, he's not finished yet.....
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    as a public sector deficit, is by definition, a private sector surplus ..

    Jesus - I think he's going to end with a 'Why can't someone else pay for it' rally call.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You don't need taxes to fund a deficit either. Europe is more than capable of providing ample stimulus for all of Europe,

    Told you.


  • #734
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    Again the lie is peddled that Dublin Bus is a public service, it ios not a public service it is a Commercial Semi-State Company.
    Poster will have us believe that we are all entitled to free shopping at Tescos and Dunnes next, after all we have a right to eat and provision of food is a "public service".
    Not sure what linguistic gymnastics you're trying to attempt here. The provision of public transport is a public service, whether by the state-owned DB or through licensing or subsidising private firms.

    As for the nonsense about Tesco/Dunnes...:confused:


  • #735
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    How about social democratic paradise Sweden. They backed austerity in response to a housing bust when faced with high unemployment and a deficit that was 15% of gdp.
    So you support depreciation and an export-led recovery? (an export-led recovery that was, back then, in a world where countries still readily sought more exports, but where now, very few countries are and everyone is trying to export more already)
    http://www.voxeu.org/article/fiscal-consolidation-sweden-role-model

    So, you compare:
    1: A single isolated crisis vs todays worldwide crisis
    2: A floating exchange rate vs fixed exchange rate
    3: (relating to above) Depreciation vs no depreciation
    4: A world accepting more exports vs a world not accepting more exports (because everyone is trying to export more at once)
    5: 27-30% GDP debt vs often >100% GDP debt today

    You find that one completely incomparable example, and contrast it against the last 5 years of total failure around the world, where it comes to austerity.

    What actually caused Sweden to engage in depreciation as well, was fiscal consolidation (i.e. attempting to balance the budget), so the precedent set there (and that was in good economic times among most of the world) is that you may get pushed into depreciation to regain competitiveness, if you try fiscal consolidation.
    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    Well who do you expect to fund think-thanks promoting markets and privatization, public sector unions? Turkeys don't promote Christmas.
    Right lets see...the think tanks are funded by some of the most corrupt, fraudulent, government-subsidy-loving sociopaths alive, and they routinely promote think tanks involved in anti-science policy-pushing, to cast doubt on stuff like the negative health effects of tobacco, to cast doubt on global warming, and just...every negative/unethical/lie-based/anti-science/anti-intellectual bullshít you can think of, that is aimed at promoting corporate-profit expressly at the expense of the rest of society?

    These are your happy bedfellows, and it's why everything you (and a lot of other posters here) promote, based on the crap these think tanks put out, also smacks of mostly anti-intellectual, rhetoric-based propaganda, designed to give corporations/business/finance disproportionate political/economic/social power, over the rest of society.

    I've yet to see anyone spouting those views have the honesty to just come out and state that - but I more than suspect a lot of them are fully aware of it and just don't give a toss.


  • #736
    Eoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,279 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I did not say they represent 'the public', they represent their workers - that does not mean they can not cooperate with other unions and organizations, in the public favour.

    I said, point out any other organization with as much political clout among the public, as the unions - with the Irish publics open disparagement towards protesting, you won't find any other organizations which can exert as much political power in favour of workers and the public, as the unions.

    You said exactly that (it's quoted in my post), but if that's not what you meant, then fair enough - I won't nitpick.

    I'm not aware of any groups that have that clout. But I think that often the public's interest and the workers' interests are mutually exclusive - as has been demonstrated with this strike. Perhaps the ideal situation would be organisations that have a specific focus, rather than overlapping with workers' unions that often contradict what's in the public's interest.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You don't need taxes to fund a deficit either. Europe is more than capable of providing ample stimulus for all of Europe, and the encroachment of cuts upon these public services, is another continued exertion of failed austerity policies, that are ensuring the crisis lasts longer and is far more damaging, than enacting available alternative policies.

    I'm a bit confused by some of the wording that's being used in this thread.

    These reductions in perks and overtime rates (to still pretty generous rates IMO) is not really what I understand "Austerity" to mean, especially as it's been pointed out that CIE is not a public sector organisation. I'm not sure that the term "Austerity" can really be used to describe what's going on.

    Also, when I think "Stimulus package", I like to think of some sort of strategic investment in generating jobs or something like that - not just protecting O/T rates.


  • #737
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Frank Black wrote: »
    KyussBishop wrote:
    I did not say they represent 'the public', they represent their workers .
    They represent their members, but let's not quibble.

    Well, you've already admitted they don't represent the public - just the narrow self interest of their members - now the Unions are suddenly wielding political power in favour of 'the public'.
    You have just intentionally misquoted me, to bolster your point. Quote full sentences.

    You deliberately cut out the rest of that sentence, to allow you to make a point that was already addressed:
    KyussBishop wrote:
    I did not say they represent 'the public', they represent their workers - that does not mean they can not cooperate with other unions and organizations, in the public favour.
    Frank Black wrote: »
    I rest my case.....

    oh wait, hang on, he's not finished yet.....

    Jesus - I think he's going to end with a 'Why can't someone else pay for it' rally call.

    Told you.
    More trite bollocks - here is just one potential solution to the entire crisis, which solves it throughout all of Europe, in a much shorter time period and more equitably, without any cuts, and without any tax increases:
    http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/euro-crisis/modest-proposal/

    That shows your austerity narrative is economically illiterate bullshít, designed to propagandize and further your own ideological views, more than anything else.

    You don't give a toss about solving the crisis, only in promoting privatization and destruction of public services/unions.


  • #738
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Not sure what linguistic gymnastics you're trying to attempt here. The provision of public transport is a public service, whether by the state-owned DB or through licensing or subsidising private firms.

    As for the nonsense about Tesco/Dunnes...:confused:

    The provison of public transport is a commercial service, which the state can choose to subsidize, it is no more a public service than the pub and bookies are.
    If the government wish to offer a subsidy then it should be open to all to tender for it.
    Choosing to misrepresent to status of CIE is the work of linguistic gynastics, clarifying the status of CIE against such misrepresentation is wholly legitimate.


  • #739
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You have just intentionally misquoted me, to bolster your point. Quote full sentences.

    You deliberately cut out the rest of that sentence, to allow you to make a point that was already addressed:



    More trite bollocks - here is just one potential solution to the entire crisis, which solves it throughout all of Europe, in a much shorter time period and more equitably, without any cuts, and without any tax increases:
    http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/euro-crisis/modest-proposal/

    That shows your austerity narrative is economically illiterate bullshít, designed to propagandize and further your own ideological views, more than anything else.

    You don't give a toss about solving the crisis, only in promoting privatization and destruction of public services/unions.

    You could publish economic and political rubbish like that under the title
    Life in Cloud Cuckoo Land:D
    It would probably be a best seller with loony left, of course you woundn't be allow profit from it as all capital is a crime!


  • #740
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Eoin wrote: »
    But I think that often the public's interest and the workers' interests are mutually exclusive - as has been demonstrated with this strike.
    That statement is inherently contradictory - workers are the public, and if some workers are underrepresented, then they should unionize and set up their own lobby groups.
    Eoin wrote: »
    Perhaps the ideal situation would be organisations that have a specific focus, rather than overlapping with workers' unions that often contradict what's in the public's interest.
    I'd agree with reforms of workers organization and unions, as I agree there are bad elements to the current unions.
    Eoin wrote: »
    I'm a bit confused by some of the wording that's being used in this thread.

    These reductions in perks and overtime rates (to still pretty generous rates IMO) is not really what I understand "Austerity" to mean, especially as it's been pointed out that CIE is not a public sector organisation. I'm not sure that the term "Austerity" can really be used to describe what's going on.

    Also, when I think "Stimulus package", I like to think of some sort of strategic investment in generating jobs or something like that - not just protecting O/T rates.
    They are de-facto a public service - they are still 100% state owned, and forcing them to rely more upon profits instead of public funding, is a more at-arms-length way of engaging in cuts.


  • #741
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    So you support depreciation and an export-led recovery? (an export-led recovery that was, back then, in a world where countries still readily sought more exports, but where now, very few countries are and everyone is trying to export more already)
    http://www.voxeu.org/article/fiscal-consolidation-sweden-role-model

    An export led recovery yes, depreciation no. How can we do that? By making labour more competitive and reducing the cost of regulation.


  • Advertisement
  • #742
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    You could publish economic and political rubbish like that under the title
    Life in Cloud Cuckoo Land:D
    It would probably be a best seller with loony left, of course you woundn't be allow profit from it as all capital is a crime!
    Why do right-wing types always use stupid phrases like 'cloud cuckoo land' and 'loony left', and make idiotic Communist comparisons - 'all capital is a crime'; just makes it blindingly obvious they have no argument, and want to drop to gutter-rhetoric.


  • #743
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    An export led recovery yes, depreciation no. How can we do that? By making labour more competitive and reducing the cost of regulation.
    Great, and we fail because everyone is trying to export at once, with nobody importing more. You need countries to increase imports (i.e. increase economic output), or we are just engaging in a race-to-the-bottom in wages (i.e. internal devaluation - thought you didn't want devaluation?) to compete with other exporting countries.

    So you don't support devaluation - you don't support balancing the budget (i.e. austerity) then, seeing as that is what forced Sweden to devalue?


  • #744
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You need countries to increase imports (i.e. increase economic output), or we are just engaging in a race-to-the-bottom in wages (i.e. internal devaluation - thought you didn't want devaluation?) to compete with other exporting countries.

    I have no idea what you are talking about, increasing exports is increasing your economic output, if someone else looks to do the same, great, two countries increase the amount of good they produce and trade, making our material life better. There is no law limiting the amount of goods you can export.
    So you don't support devaluation - you don't support balancing the budget (i.e. austerity) then, seeing as that is what forced Sweden to devalue?

    Sweden did not devalue to balance their budget, they tried their level best to defend a fixed exchange rate that overvalued their currency and failed. It certainly helped them get their budget balanced though in the following years though.


  • #745
    Eoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,279 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    That statement is inherently contradictory - workers are the public, and if some workers are underrepresented, then they should unionize and set up their own lobby groups.

    It's not contradictory - that's a gross oversimplification.

    While most of the public work, it does not mean that any given workers' union is in the interests of the public. That much is plainly clear from the last few days.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I'd agree with reforms of workers organization and unions, as I agree there are bad elements to the current unions.

    I meant that there should be more powerful groups that are specifically not focussed on employment issues and on other ones instead - as there is a good chance that there are public interest issues which would contradict with the interests of a given set of workers somewhere.


  • #746
    jman0war
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 429 ✭✭jman0war


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, it must be kept at all costs to ensure that all communities in dublin have a vital social service meaning they can get to employment and all the places they will need to go to do with school college or employment, this must happen at all costs, privatisation to keep a few vested interests happy must be stopped using whatever means possible to ensure a state run public transport service to provide communities with vital public transport is kept
    We just witnessed a private members club (union)use their position to obstruct and sabotage the provision of a public service (dublin bus) to protect their pay packets which by any stretch seems pretty generous (overtime rates at 2.5??) in a country with 400k unemployed.

    And the armchair "socialists" are here defending this carry on?


  • #747
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    How about social democratic paradise Sweden. They backed austerity in response to a housing bust when faced with high unemployment and a deficit that was 15% of gdp.



    Well who do you expect to fund think-thanks promoting markets and privatization, public sector unions? Turkeys don't promote Christmas.

    Have you been to Sweden recently. The problems in malmo are obvious. It's not the eutopian it's made appear. Good bus and train services though


  • #748
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    Boombastic wrote: »
    Have you been to Sweden recently. The problems in malmo are obvious. It's not the eutopian it's made appear. Good bus and train services though

    When I said Sweden was social democratic paradise I was being a little sarcastic as I often see it held up as so by people who support a high tax and welfare state.


  • #749
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    I have no idea what you are talking about, increasing exports is increasing your economic output, if someone else looks to do the same, great, two countries increase the amount of good they produce and trade, making our material life better. There is no law limiting the amount of goods you can export.
    Increasing economic output means increasing imports and exports. The flaw with your "everyone export your way to recovery" strategy, is that for every country that exports, there has to be one that imports an equal amount, and right now everyone wants to export more, so you just bid down wages in a race to the bottom (i.e. you desire internal devaluation).
    SupaNova2 wrote: »
    Sweden did not devalue to balance their budget, they tried their level best to defend a fixed exchange rate that overvalued their currency and failed. It certainly helped them get their budget balanced though in the following years though.
    I didn't say they did. They tried to balance their budget, and that forced them into devaluation when that failed.


  • #750
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Eoin wrote: »
    It's not contradictory - that's a gross oversimplification.

    While most of the public work, it does not mean that any given workers' union is in the interests of the public. That much is plainly clear from the last few days.
    I didn't say any given workers union represents the public. If the vast majority of the public is made up of workers, the workers interests are in the publics interest - thus if you have enough unions to represent a wide enough portion of the workforce (not just narrow portions like we have now), then there is no reason they can not co-operate to act in the interests of the public, as they have done before.
    Eoin wrote: »
    I meant that there should be more powerful groups that are specifically not focussed on employment issues and on other ones instead - as there is a good chance that there are public interest issues which would contradict with the interests of a given set of workers somewhere.
    If you have that issue with specific unions, you just need more diverse unions.


  • Advertisement
  • #751
    SupaNova2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 515 ✭✭✭SupaNova2


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Increasing economic output means increasing imports and exports. The flaw with your "everyone export your way to recovery" strategy, is that for every country that exports, there has to be one that imports an equal amount, and right now everyone wants to export more, so you just bid down wages in a race to the bottom (i.e. you desire internal devaluation).

    Of course if you export a good someone else has to import it. I'm still not sure what you are talking about, a country can increase exports and imports. It is what they have done for hundreds of years, so why can they not do it now?


Advertisement