Public Sector Unions to Take Action

Harolds+

Lemming wrote: »

Funny that that really doesn't seem to be the message that the public sector unions are putting out. Funny that "we" seems to translate as "Ok, you go in front and we'll be ... somewhere behind you ... but we're with you in spirit!!".

You must be talking about WIMPact (sic). IMPACT leadership don't want to strike. They are saying they want it but know that their popularity will twindle and possibly lose members to CPSU etc.

I will be out marching with the public and hopefully private sector workers.

SkepticOne

*Honey* wrote: »

All of us should be marching to tell the Government exactly what we think of them... they need telling, they need to be ousted and put someone in that can actually do something... because, God knows, we NEED help and we're not achieving anything by this divide between workers across the country.

But the action isn't about that. The march is about a better deal for public sector workers at the expense of the private sector.

*Honey*

SkepticOne wrote: »

But the action isn't about that. The march is about a better deal for public sector workers at the expense of the private sector.

I'm so utterly bored by this attitude. It achieves nothing. It's a complete waste of your time and mine.

Put an effort into telling this Government what you think of them, what you think of how they've managed us so far. Take whatever anger you have focused on public sector workers and direct it towards those who actually have the power to DO something.

Lemming

*Honey* wrote: »

I'm so utterly bored by this attitude. It achieves nothing. It's a complete waste of your time and mine.

Put an effort into telling this Government what you think of them, what you think of how they've managed us so far. Take whatever anger you have focused on public sector workers and direct it towards those who actually have the power to DO something.

Ok Honey, I'm bored too. I'm bored of what appears to be such a large number of public servants who just. Don't. Get. why what appears to be a sizeable amount of the private sector are so very p*ssed off with the conduct of the public service unions thus far.

Let me ask you a question; what have the public servants actually delivered to the table in "doing their bit" to ease the load on our very broken economy?

They have been asked to take what is a small percentage paycut by comparison to what is going on in the private sector and they're up in arms over it. Yes the deal is unfair, but so is what's happening wholesale in the private sector right now. And the private sector is past getting it in the neck whilst you humm, haww, and wring your hands - it's bleeding out at this point. It is very much unable to support your wage bill. So where do you suggest the money to cover the significant shortfall is generated from?

The levy rates are unfair in their application if not the basic idea itself, I will not argue with that - but that's the fault of your union bosses not doing what they're supposed to do; namely get the best deal for you. The bosses played theatrical politics and walked out of talks. Some sort of pay reduction was always going to happen and anybody who didn't accept that was and is a bloody fool, and what the union bosses did was basically walk in there with a "f*ck you" attitude instead of saying "well, we know cuts are inevitable, but how well can we lose this battle by?". They sold you down the swany to look good.

wow sierra

SkepticOne wrote: »

But the action isn't about that. The march is about a better deal for public sector workers at the expense of the private sector.

http://ictu.ie

If you want the economy to work stop cutting jobs protect jobs - there is a better, fairer way Join us ACT! National Demonstration SAt 21st Parnell Square.

I put in the quote in case you cant be bothered to follow the link to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Website. I'm sure they would be delighted to hear that it is now their aim to wipe out Private Sector jobs. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Lemming

wow sierra wrote: »

http://ictu.ie

If you want the economy to work stop cutting jobs protect jobs - there is a better, fairer way Join us ACT! National Demonstration SAt 21st Parnell Square.

I put in the quote in case you cant be bothered to follow the link to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Website. I'm sure they would be delighted to hear that it is now their aim to wipe out Private Sector jobs. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

How do the ICTU suggest that the country stops haemmoraging private sector jobs? There's a tends of thousands of people currently on 100% paycuts who would LOVE to know the solution to that one, and I would hazard a guess at quite a lot of SMEs as well.

Incidentally, protectionism causes more problems. And you need money to create the artificial environment to protect jobs. That money doesn't exist ...

NewDubliner

Lemming wrote: »

So where do you suggest the money to cover the significant shortfall is generated from?

Cut the capital expenditure elements of the NDP. With the downturn we don't need bigger roads. Stop the 'decentralisation' project. If we can't stop the bank bailout, then give public servants bank shares in lieu of the salary cut, locked in for 5 years.

Lemming

NewDubliner wrote: »

Cut the capital expenditure elements of the NDP. With the downturn we don't need bigger roads. Stop the 'decentralisation' project. If we can't stop the bank bailout, then give public servants bank shares in lieu of the salary cut, locked in for 5 years.

The NDP is one of those things that shouldn't be cut. Something to do with sending out the wrong signals internationally regarding the country's infrastructure and thus stymying inward investment further. I was quite surprised to hear it at the time too since I had the same opinion but there ye go. I think it was Garret FitzGerald who mentioned it a few months ago although not sure if it was on the radio or in a newspaper.

I'll agree with decentralisation, which should never have been done in the first place since it was a vote-buying gimmick that was ill thought out.

Bank shares? Dunno about that one. I can't really see many people opting for it with the way the banks are at the moment. And if the bank(s) in question fold? What then? Reimburse the public servants, and if so with what exactly? Could work, but it's seriously out there as an idea. Incidentally, wouldn't that effectively nationalise the banks further?

NewDubliner

Lemming wrote: »

The NDP is one of those things that shouldn't be cut. Something to do with sending out the wrong signals internationally regarding the country's infrastructure and thus stymying inward investment further.

Admittedly I am throwing out ideas for a bit of radical, outside the box discussion. But, let's consider for a moment that the road building is just more money pumped into an unsustainable construction industry. The new roads encourage long-distance commutes, car-ownership, oil dependency, traffic congestion, out-of-town malls and unsightly rural house building. This also spoils things for our tourist industry, a vital foreign income source.

A solution? Centralise industry and employment in cities where it's cheaper and more cost-effective to provide services, including public transport to the people who live there. Better to migrate to a city than out of the country entirely. We need to change the way we live if we're going to become competitive.

Lemming wrote: »

Bank shares? Dunno about that one. I can't really see many people opting for it with the way the banks are at the moment.

At the moment no, but eventually, in 5-10 years they will become valuable if we don't trash the country beforehand. It would give people a stake in the solution. But we'd have to defend the ordinary share holders from predators...remember Eircom?

The problem with the current plan is that it's just trying to revive the dead corpse of the Celtic Tiger. We should be thinking about reforming Ireland...all of it.

K-9

wow sierra wrote: »

http://ictu.ie

If you want the economy to work stop cutting jobs protect jobs - there is a better, fairer way Join us ACT! National Demonstration SAt 21st Parnell Square.

I put in the quote in case you cant be bothered to follow the link to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Website. I'm sure they would be delighted to hear that it is now their aim to wipe out Private Sector jobs. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You missed the last page were it was discussed.

The 80% payment is going to cost serious money. Our SW budget is already high. Over €200 here compared to £45/60 in the UK.

The €7 Billion is repayable. Banks can't do a 3 year moratorium on mortgages as it affects the selling on of mortgages. Nobody wants to buy a mortgage with a 3 year break.

Sterling obviously is a problem but wages are too. Costs are starting to drop, wages should follow that. Can't have it both ways.

Pay deal rises, great. I'm sure ICTU and SIPTU will lead on this matter with ESB and hand back the 3.5% rise.

Taxes on Capital - what taxes?

Tax exiles must stay away. What?

Tax on second homes, already in.

48% tax rate. On incomes over €38,000? That is the current cut off.

Some interesting points otherwise.


There is a way of raising more money that is never mentioned. Instead of paying only 2% PRSI over €53/54,000, keep it at 6%.

K-9

Lemming wrote: »

The NDP is one of those things that shouldn't be cut. Something to do with sending out the wrong signals internationally regarding the country's infrastructure and thus stymying inward investment further. I was quite surprised to hear it at the time too since I had the same opinion but there ye go. I think it was Garret FitzGerald who mentioned it a few months ago although not sure if it was on the radio or in a newspaper.

We need to finish road projects, sewerage schemes etc. We are way behind on these things.

NewDubliner wrote:

Admittedly I am throwing out ideas for a bit of radical, outside the box discussion. But, let's consider for a moment that the road building is just more money pumped into an unsustainable construction industry. The new roads encourage long-distance commutes, car-ownership, oil dependency, traffic congestion, out-of-town malls and unsightly rural house building. This also spoils things for our tourist industry, a vital foreign income source.

To an extent, though I think the boom times and easy availability of credit contributed far more to new car sales. Before that scrappage schemes did.
Some of the rest is just bad planning.

Yenwod

I assume we're all in agreement that the government is a lot to be blamed about the mess we're in, private and public sector alike?

So why can't they lead by example?

The civil servants who are out on strike on Thursday are the lowest earners. The highest a CO will ever get paid is 37k and that's after 14 years service. On average they are being asked take a 6% cut in their already small wages for this pension levy.

The government put a cap on this levy of 9% so the ministers only have to take a 9% cut on their huge salaries (not including expenses). If they want everyone to feel the "pain" of this recession, they shouldnt have put such a low cap for the high earners...and certainly shouldn't have given themselves a 1.1% backdated increase on their wages.


I am a CO and I earn less than 25k and I am willing (as are many of my colleagues) to take a drop in my wages for this pension levy...but only when the government ministers take a proportional drop, or at least make the whole thing a little more even and fair.

Lemming

NewDubliner wrote: »

Admittedly I am throwing out ideas for a bit of radical, outside the box discussion. But, let's consider for a moment that the road building is just more money pumped into an unsustainable construction industry. The new roads encourage long-distance commutes, car-ownership, oil dependency, traffic congestion, out-of-town malls and unsightly rural house building. This also spoils things for our tourist industry, a vital foreign income source.

Nothing wrong with out of the box thinking. F*ck knows we need it right now. But it should be pointed out that the problems with the construction industry were never really over NDP stuff, it was mostly within the housing market.

Whilst new roads make long distance commutes more viable, they can also drastically reduce commute times thus lowering transport and labour costs (drivers hours, etc.) and there is the issue of the housing market that forced many people to move further afield in order to be able to afford anything at all.

A solution? Centralise industry and employment in cities where it's cheaper and more cost-effective to provide services, including public transport to the people who live there. Better to migrate to a city than out of the country entirely. We need to change the way we live if we're going to become competitive.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, again centralisation is not a defacto boon and comes with its own set of problems; primary of which for Ireland is the housing market and its prices.

K-9

Yenwod wrote: »

I assume we're all in agreement that the government is a lot to be blamed about the mess we're in, private and public sector alike?

So why can't they lead by example?

The civil servants who are out on strike on Thursday are the lowest earners. The highest a CO will ever get paid is 37k and that's after 14 years service. On average they are being asked take a 6% cut in their already small wages for this pension levy.

The government put a cap on this levy of 9% so the ministers only have to take a 9% cut on their huge salaries (not including expenses). If they want everyone to feel the "pain" of this recession, they shouldnt have put such a low cap for the high earners...and certainly shouldn't have given themselves a 1.1% backdated increase on their wages.


I am a CO and I earn less than 25k and I am willing (as are many of my colleagues) to take a drop in my wages for this pension levy...but only when the government ministers take a proportional drop, or at least make the whole thing a little more even and fair.

A tax restriction of 20% for everybody would be fairer. There was chat they were going to this anyway, very few things are granted at 41% anymore.

Maybe put 0% if part time and paying no tax, 5% between €18,000 and €38,000 (with tax deduction, about 4%), 8% between €38k and €60k, 12% over that.

Hillel

*Honey* wrote: »

I'm so utterly bored by this attitude. It achieves nothing. It's a complete waste of your time and mine.

That's disappointing, I thought this thread was to explore the real and substantive differences between the public and private sectors. The topic is far from boring, at least some level of shared understanding if we are to have any level of consensus on the way forward. Without that consensus I fear greatly for the future of this country.

*Honey* wrote: »

Take whatever anger you have focused on public sector workers and direct it towards those who actually have the power to DO something.

I agree that some language on this thread has been intemperate. However, for the most part, the theme of this thread has been the differences between the public and private sector.
This is not some theoretical debate, or "bad mindedness" on behalf of the private sector. The pension levy is only the start of what will be a long series of very tough measures. Everyone is likely to feel much more pain, even those unfortunate enough to be already unemployed.
People will hopefully knuckle down and get on with it, if they perceive that the pain will be shared in a equitable fashion. If they see the public sector getting favourable treatment it could fragment social cohesion for decades to come. That is none of our interests.

SkepticOne

*Honey* wrote: »

I'm so utterly bored by this attitude. It achieves nothing. It's a complete waste of your time and mine.

Put an effort into telling this Government what you think of them, what you think of how they've managed us so far. Take whatever anger you have focused on public sector workers and direct it towards those who actually have the power to DO something.

When I said that it was a march about a better deal for the public sector at the expense of the private sector I meant it. It is going to be portrayed in the media as the public sector being unhappy about their increased pension contribution (or pay cut however you want to look at it) and so that is what it will be about.

I am not against marching to get what you want. That is your right. But let us not pretend that this is about the good of the country.

I have read the ICTU document and I would agree with Lemming's remarks on these. However even if this document amounted to something substantial, we both know that the march isn't really about getting these implemented. It is about the government lessening the impact of the pension contribution on the public sector.

I agree with those who accept the need for cuts but argue that burden of the pension levy is not equitable, but this could easily have been negotiated by the unions had they not walked out.

The reason these points come up again and again is that they are never addressed by the pro-union faction here on boards. Instead we just get the trite "I'm so bored" attitude which gets us nowhere.

ParkRunner

SkepticOne wrote: »

I agree with those who accept the need for cuts but argue that burden of the pension levy is not equitable, but this could easily have been negotiated by the unions had they not walked out.

The social partnership talks seem to have been pointless if in the last hours of the discussions leading up to the deadline for agreement, the unions were presented with a document which contained a substantial levy on the public sector and no comparable burden on the private sector. There is no way the unions would have been able to present this to their members and expected the governments position to be agreed by the union members.

Hopefully a fairer, more long-term, equitable and transparent deal can be put to all parties and we can move on. The unions and their members would have agreed to cuts in my opinion if a fair document was presented but this was not the case.

ixoy

Yenwod wrote: »

The civil servants who are out on strike on Thursday are the lowest earners. The highest a CO will ever get paid is 37k and that's after 14 years service. On average they are being asked take a 6% cut in their already small wages for this pension levy.

Also marching though will be EOs and SOs whose wage could go up to 50k, which I would not put in the realm of low earners. I think smcarrick said the average age in the civil service was 53, which would probably mean most are near the top end of the pay rung. Now even so those wages aren't incredibly high, but at the top end of the rung they'd be quite decent for the roles.

The government put a cap on this levy of 9% so the ministers only have to take a 9% cut on their huge salaries (not including expenses). If they want everyone to feel the "pain" of this recession, they shouldnt have put such a low cap for the high earners...and certainly shouldn't have given themselves a 1.1% backdated increase on their wages.

Damn straight, that would be infuriating and it's no wonder so many COs/EOs, etc are disgusted with the government on seeing that.

Question: Would you (and any other COs, EOs, SOs) here be happier if you still had your 6-7.5% levy but those on the AP and higher-grade salaries were paying something like 15-20%? Would it feel more just (and at the same time net more money for the exchequer)?

Lemming

EF wrote: »

the unions were presented with a document which contained a substantial levy on the public sector and no comparable burden on the private sector.

Do you. Not. Get it yet? The private sector has been paying already for months. It's haemmoraging. Alarmingly.

This is what really f*cks me off something awful. The veritable double-standard which public sector workers appear to be applying here. A case of "why should only we pay for this?".

You aren't.

What galls all the more so is that you haven't been paying at all yet if we follow public sector "logic". By rights the private sector should be absolutely livid to the core to follow the public sector's example.

edit: incidentally, public and private will be "paying alike" when the next raft of measures are announced I'm sure. This is only round two (round one has been the continuing decimation of the private sector and levels of pay)

Hopefully a fairer, more long-term, equitable and transparent deal can be put to all parties and we can move on. The unions and their members would have agreed to cuts in my opinion if a fair document was presented but this was not the case.

The union leaders played politics to justify their own existence. They walked out. Foolishly in my opinion. Cuts were always going to happen regardless of whether or not they accepted cuts. It was a matter of negotiating the manner in which cuts were implemented. And they stuck up two fingers to every single person in this country who pays the public sector's wage bill, and the other tens of thousands who have paid the ultimate price with 100% pay cuts.

K-9

Lemming wrote: »

The union leaders played politics to justify their own existence. They walked out. Foolishly in my opinion. Cuts were always going to happen regardless of whether or not they accepted cuts. It was a matter of negotiating the manner in which cuts were implemented. And they stuck up two fingers to every single person in this country who pays the public sector's wage bill, and the other tends of thousands who have paid the ultimate price with 100% pay cuts.

YEP, Plus FF will do a deal and look good.

It really looks like the Unions threw a strop. Poor negotiating skills.

They walked out on the lower paid, no change there.

Steviemak

Harolds+ wrote: »

IMPACT leadership don't want to strike. They are saying they want it but know that their popularity will twindle and possibly lose members

I left IMPACT last week - i will never join a union again - they don't
care about me in the private sector - they only care about the public sector and the pension levy. Where were the strikes 6 months ago when thousands of us were losing our jobs?? It was only the pension levy of a few percent that kicked them into gear.

The unions are an absolute disgrace.:mad:

ParkRunner

Lemming wrote: »

Do you. Not. Get it yet? The private sector has been paying already for months. It's haemmoraging. Alarmingly.

This is what really f*cks me off something awful. The veritable double-standard which public sector workers appear to be applying here. A case of "why should only we pay for this?".

You aren't.

What galls all the more so is that you haven't been paying at all yet if we follow public sector "logic". By rights the private sector should be absolutely livid to the core to follow the public sector's example.



The union leaders played politics to justify their own existence. They walked out. Foolishly in my opinion. Cuts were always going to happen regardless of whether or not they accepted cuts. It was a matter of negotiating the manner in which cuts were implemented. And they stuck up two fingers to every single person in this country who pays the public sector's wage bill, and the other tends of thousands who have paid the ultimate price with 100% pay cuts.

The government imposed a deadline on social partnership talks, this is the route they decided to take. They imposed the deadline because the credit rating of the State was being eroded and they had to be seen to take action before the price of borrowing went up even further. Your anger should be directed towards the government's approach.

A blind person could see that parts of the private sector are suffering badly and many thousands have lost their jobs. The public sector is not saying why should we only pay for this, they are saying we will pay our fair share, let the wealthy contribute what they can afford and let the poor contribute in whatever way they can. A back of the envelope pension levy is not the way to tackle the deep crisis that has engulfed this economy. The pension levy will not even put a dent in the hole that faces the State's finances which is why we need a greater plan!

K-9

EF wrote: »

A blind person could see that parts of the private sector are suffering badly and many thousands have lost their jobs. The public sector is not saying why should we only pay for this, they are saying we will pay our fair share, let the wealthy contribute what they can afford and let the poor contribute in whatever way they can.

Can you see the contradiction in that post?

ixoy

EF wrote: »

The public sector is not saying why should we only pay for this, they are saying we will pay our fair share, let the wealthy contribute what they can afford and let the poor contribute in whatever way they can.

So would you be willing to accept the levy if, in addition, we brought in increased taxes on the wealthy or say upped the higher income band to 45% (or some other figure)? Would it have been accepted if it was announced in addition to the levy?

SkepticOne

EF wrote: »

The social partnership talks seem to have been pointless if in the last hours of the discussions leading up to the deadline for agreement, the unions were presented with a document which contained a substantial levy on the public sector and no comparable burden on the private sector. There is no way the unions would have been able to present this to their members and expected the governments position to be agreed by the union members.

No, I meant equitable within the public sector, for example those on higher salaries taking more of the burden. If the unions had accepted in principle that a levy would be placed on their members then they could have proceeded to argue how this should have been applied. But because of their hard-line approach this did not happen.

On the issue of comparable burdens on the private sector, this is an issue that I have tried to raise several times on this forum. The reason that the public sector are being asked to take a hit is because the country as a whole has already taken a hit. What is being asked of the public sector is merely a reflection of this.

Even putting aside the fairness of the matter, what has got to be remembered is that the private sector is where funding for public sector salaries comes from. If the private sector suffers economically then there's less money to pay public sector salaries and pensions and so cutbacks, though unfortunate, are necessary.

Lemming

EF wrote: »

The government imposed a deadline on social partnership talks, this is the route they decided to take. They imposed the deadline because the credit rating of the State was being eroded and they had to be seen to take action before the price of borrowing went up even further. Your anger should be directed towards the government's approach.

Have you ever heard the expression "back to the wall?" The government has no choice but to cut spending. The wage bill is probably about the single largest chunk of the government's expenditure in a given year. Cuts were inevitable. The union leaders are the ones that you should be directing your anger at for failing to represent you. Instead they chose to greedily represent themselves in a microsm of the culture that FF has espoused.

Undoubtedly the government's levy is hamfisted, no argument there. But once again, the government is not in the position of getting the best deal for public servants; that's what your very well paid union leaders are supposedly for.

A blind person could see that parts of the private sector are suffering badly and many thousands have lost their jobs. The public sector is not saying why should we only pay for this, they are saying we will pay our fair share, let the wealthy contribute what they can afford and let the poor contribute in whatever way they can. A back of the envelope pension levy is not the way to tackle the deep crisis that has engulfed this economy. The pension levy will not even put a dent in the hole that faces the State's finances which is why we need a greater plan!

The pension levy is a start. €2billion is not a figure to be sniffed at. Would you rather a 10-25% pay cut as many in the private sector are having to take as basic necessity to keep their already-endangered jobs? How about lay offs and 100% pay cuts?

To date, the only message that the public sector unions have conveyed is abdication of responsibility. Your unions are your worst enemy. They are the ones failing you, not the government that now finds itself with almost zero options other than hard choices. There is no book-cooking available. No extra reserve funds. The state coffers are unable to maintain the lifestyle to which the civil service has grown accustomed. The coffers have dried up and it it is. That. Simple.

ParkRunner

ixoy wrote: »

So would you be willing to accept the levy if, in addition, we brought in increased taxes on the wealthy or say upped the higher income band to 45% (or some other figure)? Would it have been accepted if it was announced in addition to the levy?

I believe it would. If the government could have provided a roadmap or even now provide a roadmap now about what is ahead there may be some confidence restored in the economy, but at the moment no one can make a sensible economic personal choice or investment because there is so much uncertainty out there which is only adding to everyones problems. There is no money flowing!

I personally will take the levy because I can afford it because thankfully I havent been screwed yet by the banks or the property developers but there are many others in every sector who can't afford such a hit.

ParkRunner

SkepticOne wrote: »

No, I meant equitable within the public sector, for example those on higher salaries taking more of the burden. If the unions had accepted in principle that a levy would be placed on their members then they could have proceeded to argue how this should have been applied. But because of their hard-line approach this did not happen.

On the issue of comparable burdens on the private sector, this is an issue that I have tried to raise several times on this forum. The reason that the public sector are being asked to take a hit is because the country as a whole has already taken a hit. What is being asked of the public sector is merely a reflection of this.

Even putting aside the fairness of the matter, what has got to be remembered is that the private sector is where funding for public sector salaries comes from. If the private sector suffers economically then there's less money to pay public sector salaries and pensions and so cutbacks, though unfortunate, are necessary.

Neither sector can survive without the other really. The country as a whole has not taken a hit yet though. There are still tremendously wealthy people out there who can afford to contribute a lot more and who are not. There are those earning decent incomes who have had to pay the income levy as everyone else but that is all. And there are those who have lost everything.

There will be cutbacks in the public sector there is no doubt about, it will happen regardless of who is in government. And those cuts will be transparent for all to see.

K-9

EF wrote: »

. There are still tremendously wealthy people out there who can afford to contribute a lot more and who are not.

Yes, but dropping.

EF wrote:

There will be cutbacks in the public sector there is no doubt about, it will happen regardless of who is in government. And those cuts will be transparent for all to see.

YEP, No job cuts, cuts in A&E and Special Education instead.

Lemming

EF wrote: »

Neither sector can survive without the other really. The country as a whole has not taken a hit yet though.

Ummmm .... yes. It has. Well, outside of the civil service it has overall. I dare you to go down to Limerick or Waterford or Dublin airport (to pick three obvious examples) and spout that woefully out-of-touch statement.

There are still tremendously wealthy people out there who can afford to contribute a lot more and who are not.There are those earning decent incomes who have had to pay the income levy as everyone else but that is all. And there are those who have lost everything.

The cynic in me will flippantly point out that none of them have been civil servants to date.

But seriously, you are going to sit there and argue that because sub-sections of the country haven't been hit by wholesale redundancy and massive drops in income that the country is still doing well? I want whatever drugs are you on because they sound like fun! I'll need to see if they're available on a social-welfare scheme since I'm due to lose my job next week. I wasn't asked if I wanted to take a pay-cut. But of course, the country is still doing well by your logic, so what would I know.