Now they want to take away our minimum wage

archplanner

Biggins wrote: »

This one will make you laugh (NOT!!!)

Jackie Healy-Rae

Basic: 106,581
Expenses: (THIS IS NOT A MIS-PRINT) 89,705
Secretary Allowance: 40,090
Independent Allowance: 41,152
Committee Chair: 10,241
TOTAL: 289,768

Refused to take a paycut!

'I took no paycut because our expenses are being cut, our phones are being cut , our overnights and travel are being cut. I feel i have enough cuts already' - Jackie Healy Rae, quoted in Star Sunday

My heart bleeds - you know times are bad when TD's are feeling the pinch

Biggins

The_Minister wrote: »

The money for a secretary goes to his *shock* secretary not to him. Not fair to count that in earnings.

Correct to a certain extent. Thats what's paid to him to pass on in earnings.
IF he is employing a secretary, he don't have to give it all to her/him and he don't (or anyone) have to show proof of expenditure for it either.
The only paperwork that would appear would be for tax/prsi, etc for the staff hired - IF they are hired!

The_Minister

Biggins wrote: »

Correct to a certain extent. Thats what's paid to him to pass on in earnings.
IF he is employing a secretary, he don't have to give it all to her/him and he don't (or anyone) have to show proof of expenditure for it either.
The only paperwork that would appear would be for tax/prsi, etc for the staff hired - IF they are hired!

I am nearly certain that you are wrong on that point.


To the public library!

ejmaztec

archplanner wrote: »

'I took no paycut because our expenses are being cut, our phones are being cut , our overnights and travel are being cut. I feel i have enough cuts already' - Jackie Healy Rae, quoted in Star Sunday

My heart bleeds - you know times are bad when TD's are feeling the pinch

More fools the ingratiating sycophantic morons who voted the doddering Kerry hill-billy into his front seat on the gravy train.

The words "cuts" and "bleeds" are inspiring - but I'd probably get banned were I to put them into a suitable sentence.

Red Sleeping Beauty

You're nitpicking Minister, c'mon!

Thundercats Ho

€335 for a full working week is hardly a lot now is it?
There's a €130 difference between working a full week on min wage, and being on social welfare. then factor in childcare costs.
would you qualify for a medical card if you were on minimum wage?

The people who are calling for the min wage to be reduced are blind, and are probably on a decent wage.
Reducing the min wage would make it easier for the 'spongers' as they have been labeled, to throw their hats at it, jack their jobs, and go on the dole. Do people actually think it would stimulate job growth? Really....

The people calling for the social welfare to be reduced must be joking.
I'd like to see them trying to support their family and pay for a mortgage, on social welfare.

The_Minister

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

You're nitpicking Minister, c'mon!

Over €40,000 is not nit-picking.
The expenses mainly go to pay for their constituency clinics, and their secretary allowance to their secretaries, and I don't think its fair to count them as income.

Biggins

To be fair, the Green party are not taking a 10% cut but they DO give 20% of their wages to the party.
Labour refuses to take cuts.
Just 9 F.G. took cuts - rest refused!
Sinn Fein take home 34,000 for themselves and give the rest to the org'.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The_Minister wrote: »

Over €40,000 is not nit-picking.
The expenses mainly go to pay for their constituency clinics, and their secretary allowance to their secretaries, and I don't think its fair to count them as income.

Nobody cares, stop defending them. They are getting paid too much, it really is that simple.

JohnGalt

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd rather see the government taking €1000 off a rich guy than 10c off a poor one.

There is no anti thanks button so I will just say -10000000000 to that comment

ronano

biggins

where are you getting the info?

congo_90

Alessandra wrote: »

What is annoying about this is that those arguing that the minimum wage be lowered are on scandalous money and have no experience of having to survive on 9euro an hour in this country. If they must cut wages then they must do so from the top and only charge the little man if absolutely necessary.

High earners to lose even 50euro p/w is nothing to them. For me, losing even half a days pay from something trivial like trying to go doc etc blows my budget to pieces and before you ask i'm not living the life of reilly! I dont have sky tv etc. I've a laptop and a phone and a bed. simple as.

The_Minister

Alec High Soprano wrote: »

Nobody cares, stop defending them. They are getting paid too much, it really is that simple.

Then criticise their real pay, and not the allowances that they are given to be able to do their job.

I think they should take a paycut (and I understand that they will soon) but it is dishonest and unfair to present secretary wages and clinic expenses as part of their personal income.

phantom_lord

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

All four of those chains that you mentioned need to be taken to task with regards their Anti-Union policy. They're scum, utter scum in my absolutely final and humble opinion.

that'd be my opinion of unions. they've long outlived their usefulness.

Red Sleeping Beauty

The_Minister wrote: »

The money for a secretary goes to his *shock* secretary not to him. Not fair to count that in earnings.

Thundercats Ho wrote: »

€335 for a full working week is hardly a lot now is it?
There's a €130 difference between working a full week on min wage, and being on social welfare. then factor in childcare costs.
would you qualify for a medical card if you were on minimum wage?

For what it's worth, those on minimum wage jobs probably won't have a full time contract guaranteeing them a full week's work - they'll be working on an 8hr contract and then waiting for whatever scraps they can get . Basically when you're on these jobs, you get rostered for whatever work is going and then you'll get a phone call if the business gets busy or there's sickies.


Another fúcking rotten side effect of this culture of minimum wage short term work/social welfare payments.


Have a read of these posts...

Classified Machine wrote:

As it stands, no. Once upon a time the social democratic parties championed the idea of the government being the employer of the last resort, as a way to aim for full employment - with wages being increased to encourage as many possible into work. Given it is clear the vast majority of the unemployed would work with the right incentives, in theory this could have all but wiped out unemployment. Of course it was not implemented, which isn't a major shock as such an idea is currently unworkable.

Workers would be in a very strong position in a full employment economy and would make 'excessive' demands on employers, who would either have to take a cut in profits, which isn't much good for investor confidence. On the other hand, they could pass on the costs to consumers, which isn't so good for finance capital who look on in horror as inflation gallops away and of course it is not so good for the consumers themselves.

The point is: full employment is simply unworkable as it stands and therefore there isn't the will for such a thing. In the same way, unemployment is therefore planned for. This doesn't mean full employment or near full employment isn't possible, however.[

Thing is that if they lower the minimum wage, does that mean that the our cost of living will also decrease. Screw it, if my wage decreased, I could barely survive. It's hard enough as it is and I've no luxuries at all.

Biggins

ronano wrote: »

biggins

where are you getting the info?

Well besides the usual net locations (example: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/politicians-get-pension-payments-on-top-of-salary-1623010.html)
Another net example that is eye opening: http://www.herald.ie/national-news/td-expenses-worth-more-than-average-wage-1593304.html
..also from papers and documents that I have researched and tracked down
For example:

The_Minister

Deleted User wrote: »

Thing is that if they lower the minimum wage, does that mean that the our cost of living will also decrease. Screw it, if my wage decreased, I could barely survive. It's hard enough as it is and I've no luxuries at all.

It's decreasing at the moment.

zreba

Deleted User wrote: »

Thing is that if they lower the minimum wage, does that mean that the our cost of living will also decrease.

yes, very correct:

day to day cost of living:

1a. accommodation renting - prices falled down up to 30%, I just negotiated my rent cut by 400 euros in December
1b. property prices - you can buy a house much cheaper than before
2. cars - prices dropped down a lot
3. petrol - recession caused petrol prices falled down
5. services - e.g. building workers, tilers etc
4. reducing wages will bring further cost reductions like food and other goods, as the cost of production/distribution will decrease further.

those just 5 points which I have in mind straight away, you can easily find more examples if you only think about it

Peanut

The way the government is handling this whole thing reminds me of the first Lisbon vote - i.e. surprisingly disconnected with opinion on the street.

Minimum wage could be reduced, but it must be part of a larger package of rationalisation that deals with all areas of society. At the moment they are risking serious civil unrest by not making concrete proposals which reclaim value in the higher-earning sectors in addition to the lower earners and social welfare

Hounding the bankers etc. may not make any significant improvement to the current finances, however the government need to be seen to do something, to restore even a small amount of faith in their ability to manage the economy.

People will take a cut as long as they feel it's fair - if it's not seen to be implemented fairly then it will cause a lot of agitation.

zreba

Peanut wrote: »

The way the government is handling this whole thing reminds me of the first Lisbon vote - i.e. surprisingly disconnected with opinion on the street.

Minimum wage could be reduced, but it must be part of a larger package of rationalisation that deals with all areas of society. At the moment they are risking serious civil unrest by not making concrete proposals which reclaim value in the higher-earning sectors in addition to the lower earners and social welfare

Hounding the bankers etc. may not make any significant improvement to the current finances, however the government need to be seen to do something, to restore even a small amount of faith in their ability to manage the economy.

People will take a cut as long as they feel it's fair - if it's not seen to be implemented fairly then it will cause a lot of agitation.

look at this thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055479463&page=36

this is about Public Service paycuts (pension levy),
and as far as I can see this is a part of bigger plan, and every group of people affected have the same set of reasons against

banshee_bones

The_Minister wrote: »

It's decreasing at the moment.

WHERE?

Sorry. But I sure as hell do NOT see it. My rent is STILL the same as it was in October. The Goods and services i get are still the same. I dont see any serious reductions or bargains at any of the cinemas or restaurants i go to. Price of drink is STILL criminally high. Petrol also isnt exactly "cheap" but i guess the odd 30c-ish reduction is a start.
Its still 80 c for a chocolate bar....

As i have said before, prices across the BOARD need to come down. WAY down.

Peanut

zreba wrote: »

look at this thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055479463&page=36

this is about Public Service paycuts (pension levy),
and as far as I can see this is a part of bigger plan, and every group of people affected have the same set of reasons against

That may be so, but if there is a grand plan, then I think there has been a huge failure in getting this across to people. Many of the arguments I read there are from people looking for fairness, e.g.

Peanut66 wrote:

"I would agree with the need to cut wages for the good of the country if EVERYONE who could afford it were making some sort of contribution also but all my mates are still employed in private sector and have not had a penny taken off them."

Heroditas

Alec High Soprano wrote: »

What your dole money is spent on is non of anybodies business... No matter what anyone says. The dole is already sorted, if people are living in a house that has a lot of luxeries, it would seem somebody is telling a porky, the people in the house get means tested. So if I work for 10 years, get laid off, I go to the dole office and they refuse me on the basis that I have sky tv? You're talking crap man. What I have saved in my account is my own business, how I spend my money, yes, it is mine not yours contrary to popular belief, is completely 100% my own business. The money isn't given to you on the basis that you take away all your luxeries, that you only spend it on food, heating and shelter... Wake up, will ya?

The fact that a couple with kids on the dole can afford to live far better off than people I work with who are on far higher than the industrial wage would tend to suggest that the dole and all the ancilliary payments is too high.
It's utterly ridiculous and offers no encouragement to some of the people out there that have no intention of working. Instead they'll sit on their hole and ring Joe Duffy to tell him how they have nothing to do and then complain that they are entitled to more of our money because there is no incentive to work.
There are an awful lot of people out there who I feel sorry for, those who have been let go through no fault of their own.
However, there are an awful lot more who you and I are subsidizing every day of the week and live the life of Reilly. They have a better living standard than many working families in this state. How can that possibly be fair?
Not ranting at you.... ranting at the system.

zreba

banshee_bones wrote: »

WHERE?

e.g. here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58984648&postcount=140

banshee_bones wrote: »

Sorry. But I sure as hell do NOT see it. My rent is STILL the same as it was in October.

did you try to negotiate it? if not - give it a go, if you failed - find new house - it's plenty for reduced prices over there on daft at the moment

banshee_bones wrote: »

The Goods and services i get are still the same.

compare price for repairing a roof in your house now and a year ago, you will be surprised,

but the true is that the main cost reduction in services will take place after wages reduction

banshee_bones wrote: »

I dont see any serious reductions or bargains at any of the cinemas or restaurants i go to. Price of drink is STILL criminally high. Petrol also isnt exactly "cheap" but i guess the odd 30c-ish reduction is a start.
Its still 80 c for a chocolate bar....

As i have said before, prices across the BOARD need to come down. WAY down.

and to add at the end:

we're during a big recession, don't expect that the relation between wages and cost of living will stay the same as from before recession came.

Red Sleeping Beauty

There's a prize for fixing your roof ?

zreba

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

There's a prize for fixing your roof ?

fixed

banshee_bones

zreba wrote: »

e.g. here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58984648&postcount=140

did you try to negotiate it? if not - give it a go, if you failed - find new house - it's plenty for reduced prices over there on daft at the moment


compare prize for repairing a roof in your house now and a year ago, you will be surprised,

but the true is that the main cost reduction in services will take place after wages reduction



and to add at the end:

we're during a big recession, don't expect that the relation between wages and cost of living will stay the same as from before recession came.

Eh. i TRIED to move. Had a room found cheaper and with friends of mine. My only requirement was that i fill my room, and thanks to the "now-flooded" rental market I couldnt get anyone to take my room.

I also am not in a position to buy a house.

zreba

banshee_bones wrote: »

Eh. i TRIED to move. Had a room found cheaper and with friends of mine. My only requirement was that i fill my room, and thanks to the "now-flooded" rental market I couldnt get anyone to take my room.

I also am not in a position to buy a house.

so you see, you can find cheaper accommodation now, you just need to wait until your old contract finishes and vuala

The_Minister

zreba wrote: »

so you see, you can find cheaper accommodation now, you just need to wait until your old contract finishes and vuala

Or end it early depending on the nature of the contract.