Is it time to ban unions?

Cork

Originally posted by cdebru
yeah cork see you managed to avoid the point about benchmarking
could it be that you waffle with out knowing what your talking about
and your point about it costing an post to collect the tv license is????

An Post should be making money from collecting TV licences.

These companies think that ist is ok to be a burden on the state. They need more Michael O Leary or Willlie Walsh to get sorted out.

Unions look after their members interests and not of the taxpayer. Benchmarking was indeed a waste from the view of the taxpayer.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
All monopolies other than in the rail-sector are WRONG.

Yes, lets open up the air traffic control market to competition.

Originally posted by Cork
Many workers in private sector companies have to pay for stock options. They simply don't sit back expecting to get 15% of the company that they work for.

ICC directors were awarded shares on becoming directors. Aer Lingus, ESB and Telecom Eireann staff were awarded 5% of their resepective companies in exchange for redundancies and changes in work practices that made the companies more profitable. Eircom staff had to buy the top-up 9.9% stake.

I don't think any other semi-states have had share offerings to staff, but there have been no free shares.

Cork

The NIB has recommended referring the dispute to the Labour Court, which will put in place a process to deal with all the issues in dispute: pay, pensions, organisational change and an employee equity stake in the company

What do public service unions want?

If they want privatisation - what plans do they have to protect us aganist publicly owned monopolies?

RainyDay

Originally posted by Cork
No, they don't.

Many workers in private sector companies have to pay for stock options.

Please name just one private sector company where employees pay for stock options (and I'm assuming you understand the difference between a stock option and a stock award and a stock purchase scheme).

Cork

Originally posted by RainyDay
Please name just one private sector company where employees pay for stock options (and I'm assuming you understand the difference between a stock option and a stock award and a stock purchase scheme).

Option is where you have an option to buy at a date in the future at a specific price.

What was the average price paid by Eircom workers for their shares?

Unions lobby for such share holdings. But having a stake is of little point unless it is tradable.

If a worker passes on - his stake should pass on to his family.

Yet you still have some socialist partys still opposed to privatisation.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Cork
Option is where you have an option to buy at a date in the future at a specific price.

What was the average price paid by Eircom workers for their shares?

Unions lobby for such share holdings. But having a stake is of little point unless it is tradable.

If a worker passes on - his stake should pass on to his family.

Yet you still have some socialist partys still opposed to privatisation.

You seem to be avoiding my question, so I'll try again;

Please name just one private sector company where employees pay for stock options

cdebru

Unions look after their members interests and not of the taxpayer. Benchmarking was indeed a waste from the view of the taxpayer.

cork you completely ignored the point an post workers who you were slagging off
did not get any benchmarking payrise as it did not apply to semistate companies

of course unions look after their members interest thats what they are their for
so presumably your point is that unions should be banned because they are looking after their members interest
and whos interest do you think they should be looking after bertie and mary and the gang or michael oleary and tony oreilly or

by the way their members are taxpayers
or did you think it was just you that paid tax

cdebru

What was the average price paid by Eircom workers for their shares?

the goverment got away with that privatisation trick once it wont be as easy again
the workers in semi state companies have seen what happened at eircom
which has been a disaster
and a massive mistake by the cwu
which now is supposed to be representing the employees
as well as share holders who no longer work at the company
and the two are incompatible

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cork
Ireland is such a small country. Yet An Post seems to hiking up the cost of postal delivery to try and cover its costs.

It is said that it costs An Post to collect RTE's licence fee.

Just as well An Post is not the postal provider in australia - How would they cope with such a vast country.

I've no idea how they'd cope with a country as vast as Australia, but they'd have a difficult time trying to make sense of your posts.

Imagine a service provider setting their prices so they can cover the cost of providing said service, the bare faced cheek of them. Put them up against the wall says I!

cdebru

It is said that it costs An Post to collect RTE's licence fee

yeah what cork does not mention is that when an post said they did not want to collect the tv licence fee anymore there was no big rush from any of the banks or anybody else to do the job
if it should be lucrative why did n't one of the entreprenuers in the private jump in to make a killing
as usual the unprofitable jobs are left to the semistates and then people like cork complain that they dont make any money at it

Cork

Originally posted by therecklessone


Imagine a service provider setting their prices so they can cover the cost of providing said service, the bare faced cheek of them. Put them up against the wall says I!

Therecklessone - Efficecent companys are well entitled to set profit margins. I don't believe inefficent state monopolies should simply pass on the cost of inefficent work practices to the public.

Sure, An Post should be privatised. Look at the political football that road side post boxes has become. Politicians sticking their ore in with regards to a state company.

We live in a geographical small country & An Post should utilise new technology to actaually make profits for the state.

Cdebru- Why are An Post doing RTE a favour by collecting the licence fee. If it made commercial nonsense in the first place?

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
Therecklessone - Efficecent companys are well entitled to set profit margins. I don't believe inefficent state monopolies should simply pass on the cost of inefficent work practices to the public.

I thought the idea was for the market (within reason) to set prices.

Originally posted by Cork
We live in a geographical small country & An Post should utilise new technology to actaually make profits for the state.

But does the government actually want it to make profit or does it want it to provide services. And what balance between the two is to be acheived.

Originally posted by Cork
Cdebru- Why are An Post doing RTE a favour by collecting the licence fee. If it made commercial nonsense in the first place?

Because the government is obliging them to collect it, not just on an agency basis but to act as RTÉs knee breakers if people don't pay up.

Cork

Originally posted by Victor
I thought the idea was for the market (within reason) to set prices.

But that is in a competive market. Companies like Aer Rianta, ESB and An Post have a near monopoly.

RainyDay

I'll try a 3rd time, Cork;

Please name just one private sector company where employees pay for stock options

Cork

I am not 100% sure of specific examples so I'll refrain from example giving on naming specific companies.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Cork
I am not 100% sure of specific examples so I'll refrain from example giving on naming specific companies.

If you're not sure, you should refrain talking about stuff you know little about. You should also have the honesty to withdraw your earlier claim.

No-one pays for stock options. Many private sectors participate in share purchase schemes and pay for shares at a discounted price. Employees may pay when they exercise a stock option, but no-one pays for stock options.

ecksor

Originally posted by Cork
I am not 100% sure of specific examples so I'll refrain from example giving on naming specific companies.

Is that political speak for "I'd better not get caught out talking about something I know nothing about" ?

Victor

Originally posted by RainyDay
No-one pays for stock options.

A whole different argument, but ultimately the many pay for the few.

bonkey

Originally posted by ecksor
Is that political speak for "I'd better not get caught out talking about something I know nothing about" ?

Nope. I think its more political speak for "I was wrong, and don't want to admit whether or not I knew so in advance, for to do that would either make me a liar or just someone who makes things up that sound good, suit my argument, but to which I have no clue about the truthfulness of or not."

But that is in a competive market. Companies like Aer Rianta, ESB and An Post have a near monopoly.

This, of course, completely ignores whether or not the venture in question could actually be a viable private enterprise when faced with numerous issues.

For example, while its probable (almost certain?) that a city like Dublin should be able to handle a privatisation of its airport services, one must question whether or not there is benefit in privatising all of the airport services across the country provided by Aer Rianta.

Also, given that we have no two airports in close proximity, it is difficult to see how privatising Aer Rianta would actually lead to competition. Its a bit like the privatisation of British Rail - it didn't lead to competition. It led to different lines being owned by different companies, but on any given route there was still only one service provider.

Moving on to the likes of ESB, sure its possible to have competition in the generation sector, but this is not a monopoly as things stand. Yes, its a fledgling market, and yes it has teething problems, but a complete privatisation is no guarantee fo a lack of teething problems either - witness Telecom Eireann.

Then we look at the likes of An Post. Sure it would be profitable to open up areas to competition. Y'know....allow companies to bid for the right to collect/deliver in a certain area on an ongoing basis, but exactly how do you handle the areas which are non-profitable, if not by setting levels of funding to whoever wins the contract. But you still don't have competition in provision of service, make no mistake. And whoever gets the funding no longer has any incentive to produce anything which obviates the need for that funding - such efficiency would only lead to decreased funding, or to cries that the government was funding excessively which is no solution either way.

Privatisation is not a simple issue. You need to look at a service and ask how this service would perform in a non-monopolistic situation (with or without state funding and/or state-owned competitors) , or in a monopolostic privatised situation.

In most of the cases where people are saying there is no reason for the concern to remain under government control, it is difficult to see how it can be successfully privatised. Sure, private industry is likely to be more efficient but only in the absence of funding from the government, and in the presence of controls by the government to guarantee no abrogation of Quality/Coverage of service and to ensure a consumer-cost-level in the event of a privatised monopoly.

There are some things which the government could privatise, but the list is far, far shorter than the likes of arcadegame2004 is portraying, at least when you take pathetic issues like equality of treatment into account.

It would be nice to say that electricity distribution could be demonopolised, for example, but what would be the result? The result would be that anywhere profitable would end up being contested, and anywhere non-profitable would not be (unless subsidised). The end result would be a greater burden on the taxpayer, as the cost of paying for the non-profitable areas would remain with the government, whilst the benefit from the profitable areas was no longer as available to offset that.

Hardly a desirable solution.

I would lay this challenge at the feet of anyone who is suggesting the privatisation of anything. If you believe it should be privatised, show how said privatisation is of benefit in the long term. Other than vague hand-waving comments about how it would save the tax-payer X cost which they are currently paying, and ignoring what impact hte privatisation may have, I really haven't seen much.

In the 90s, when Dublin city was being excavated whilst every single bandwidth-provider and their cousin was laying fibre-optic cable, people were up in arms about the disruption. But thats a cost of competition that has to be factored. If we're not talking about competition, but simply selling off to a private monopoly, then how do we avoid the fiasco's such as British Rail, or Telecom Eireann. And before people start suggesting better regulation as the solution, consider that better regulation of the semi-state bodies would obviate the need for privatising to a private monopoly in the first place, so its a moot point.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
A whole different argument, but ultimately the many pay for the few.

No-one pays for stock options.

People pay for the exercising of said options.

There is a subtle difference.

jc

RainyDay

Originally posted by Victor
A whole different argument, but ultimately the many pay for the few.

True - but likewise, the many (all shareholders) pay for all employee benefits (salary, health benefits and stock options).

cdebru

True - but likewise, the many (all shareholders) pay for all employee benefits (salary, health benefits and stock options).

thats crap its employees labour that produces profit
the profit is then either reinvested in the business to make more money
or taken by the shareholders
salary, health benefits and stock options are the return for labour not some generous gift from the shareholders
any extra benefits are given to encourage the labour force to work harder and therefore increase returns in the long run

cdebru

I would lay this challenge at the feet of anyone who is suggesting the privatisation of anything. If you believe it should be privatised, show how said privatisation is of benefit in the long term. Other than vague hand-waving comments about how it would save the tax-payer X cost which they are currently paying, and ignoring what impact hte privatisation may have, I really haven't seen much.

brilliant idea lets hear exactly how they think it can worrk and why we need privatisation other than the usual competition is good mantra
who will operate the rural post offices than can not make money when you take away an posts ability to cross subsidise
does anyone think that the esb can make money out of running miles of cable to supply electricity to a couple of houses
it s not just about profit it about public service in fact you could say that it should not be about profit but public service
competion does not always deliver for the consumer for example when aircoach entered the bus market in dublin with express buses to the airport in competition with dublin bus they charged dearer for the service than dublin bus's airlink service
this allowed dublin bus to up the price of their service and still be cheaper than aircoach
so now we have competition but the consumer actually pays more for the service
where is the benefit other than being able to go to the airport in a different colour bus

The Corinthian

Originally posted by cdebru
thats because you are self employed and can set your own wages as you see fit

An entrepreneur may only set his/her wages, as cash flow and profitability will allow. In the case of an SME, it is almost always entrepreneurs who will be first to go without on a bad month and ultimately remain liable for unsecured debts should the business go under.

thats crap its employees labour that produces profit

Actually, no. Labour is one input of productivity, but it is by no means the only one. Capital and risk are two other inputs that are ultimate determinants of profit.

With all due respects, reading your posts, you would appear to have very little understanding of economics or even business in general.

cdebru

An entrepreneur may only set his/her wages, as cash flow and profitability will allow. In the case of an SME, it is almost always entrepreneurs who will be first to go without on a bad month and ultimately remain liable for unsecured debts should the business go under

that s the same as as they see fit

Actually, no. Labour is one input of productivity, but it is by no means the only one. Capital and risk are two other inputs that are ultimate determinants of profit

the orignal post was in response to a silly quote that basically implied that salaries and benefits were some kind of gift from shareholders
the reply was merely pointing out that salaries and benefits are the return for labour

With all due respects, reading your posts, you would appear to have very little understanding of economics or even business in general.

with all due respect to your self i think you mean i dont see business and economics from the same point of view as your self
if you are trying to say i therefor dont understand because idont believe in the same thing you believe in then well that s your opinion and your entitled to it

if your trying to intimidate me by insulting me then you will have try harder

The Corinthian

Originally posted by cdebru
that s the same as as they see fit

I’m afraid it’s not as there are limits, starting with the fact that a company’s cash flow or net funds act as a maximum to the level of wages that the entrepreneur can set. After that, there’s a pecking order of inelastic costs, from bank, to rent, to utilities and to employees - all of whom will foreclose, evict, cut off or simply walk out if the capitalist fails to pay up, further limiting wages as ‘they see fit’.

So if you mean as they see fit within a very narrow budget, more often than not even less than their own employees, then sure. Otherwise you’re obviously talking about those other Capitalists who live in that magic fantasy land of worker exploitation and furious Marxist thought.

the orignal post was in response to a silly quote that basically implied that salaries and benefits were some kind of gift from shareholders
the reply was merely pointing out that salaries and benefits are the return for labour

But it can well be a gift or bonus. If you accept that labour is not the only input of production, then you must accept that if the remuneration exceeds the cost of labour (generally an agreed salary), then it must be as a result of other inputs - that are not owned by the Worker, but by the Capitalist. Therefore such a bonus is a gift.

if your trying to intimidate me by insulting me then you will have try harder

No, I’m simply suggesting that you read up some microeconomic theory before making fallacious sweeping statements. You may disagree with me all you want, as is your right, but it still does not mean you actually know anything on the subject.

bonkey

Originally posted by cdebru
the reply was merely pointing out that salaries and benefits are the return for labour

I smiled when I read the phrasing of this, as it reminded me of a comment I hear all-too-frequently in half-jest about certain co-workers in a large company...

"I'm employed from 9 to 5. Work costs extra".

So, salaries and benefits are sometimes the return for employment, not labour

jc

cdebru

But it can well be a gift or bonus. If you accept that labour is not the only input of production, then you must accept that if the remuneration exceeds the cost of labour (generally an agreed salary), then it must be as a result of other inputs - that are not owned by the Worker, but by the Capitalist. Therefore such a bonus is a gift.

the payment for example a bonus is given as a return for labour either all ready used or in the expectation that in giving the bonus more productivity can be gained
sure an employer can give a gift so can anyone but a salary or health or other benefits are the return for labour so therefore part of the cost of labour
a work related bonus is not a gift

The Corinthian

Originally posted by cdebru
the payment for example a bonus is given as a return for labour either all ready used or in the expectation that in giving the bonus more productivity can be gained
sure an employer can give a gift so can anyone but a salary or health or other benefits are the return for labour so therefore part of the cost of labour
a work related bonus is not a gift

A bonus may be work related, in which case it is a payment for labour whose value exceeds agreed or expected labour. If the bonus is not related to productivity then it is a gift - such as a Christmas bonuses or even other automatic bonuses such as share options upon a firms IPO.

cdebru

No, I’m simply suggesting that you read up some microeconomic theory before making fallacious sweeping statements. You may disagree with me all you want, as is your right, but it still does not mean you actually know anything on the subject

so what is the fallacious sweeping statement i made
actually i have read plenty of economic theory micro and macro studied it for two very boring years
but just because i have read it and understood it does not mean that i have to accept it as the truth
nor do i have to accept that the model that you would believe in is the best way for this or any ecomomy

and presumably you are of the opinion that you know everything on the subject
i'm impressed