Are unions the cause of the mess we are in???

dresden8

On another tangent, unions were always like that.

The current mess is made from low interest rates exploited by greedy bankers, greedy developers and corrupt politicians.(or we could be kind and say stupid politicians)

And before anybody says we were all in it, it's the developers loans that will bankrupt the country.

SkepticOne

dresden8 wrote: »

On another tangent, unions were always like that.

I think it is not so much the unions themselves but the political culture that has built up since 1997 which panders to them. Not only to them but also the various business groups that lobby the government. The problem is the governments desire to try to accommodate everone. Leadership means saying no once in a while even if saying no causes tantrums among those being turned down.

Darragh29

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think it is not so much the unions themselves but the political culture that has built up since 1997 which panders to them. Not only to them but also the various business groups that lobby the government. The problem is the governments desire to try to accommodate everone. Leadership means saying no once in a while even if saying no causes tantrums among those being turned down.

I think the stance taken by unions in this country has largely been one of intrasigence and an "our way or the highway" approach to pay negotiation. Sometimes I'd look at a union leaders and their attitude and approach would be not incompatible with Iraqi warlords in the middle of negotiations for a hostage release.

Having said that, I've been on the other side of coin when I worked for a large multinational in Ireland and we had no career prospects because of corruption, no information about promotions... So I'm of the view that there is a need for unions, just not the current flavour of unionisation we have in Ireland. Maybe unions are more harm than good, maybe the answer is better workplace legislation and more ruthless inforcement...

dresden8

On another tangent, how many non-union people who negotiated their own salary negotiated downwards for the sake of the company and the country during their negotiations?

Why would you expect unions to do this?

How many companies willingly cut their profit margins for the good of the consumer and the country?

jimmmy

dresden8 wrote: »

Indeed, that's a good deal.

( the handout they get on retirement as well as a generous pension )

Its a good deal for those the public sector, as they are the ones who get it on retirement. Its not such a good deal for the exchequer, the country at large, and by implication the 1,800,000 million people in the private sector.a

dresden8 wrote: »

But it's hardly the realms of "so much money in their pension that no matter how many luxury holidays they have they can't spend it" idea that Jimmmy is spreading.

I never said its "so much money in their pension that no matter how many luxury holidays they have they can't spend it"

However, if you have a wide circle of friends at all and know them fairly well, odds are you probably know a few public servants sunning themselves in Spain or Portugal in their villas as we speak

dresden8 wrote: »

Overall public sector pensions are good, that is true

As I said, there is no such thing as a free luch for 300,000...not all day every day. Anyone defending public sector pensions, after seeing that half hour exposure on RTE , should be ashamed of themselves, given the stae of our economy and our borrowing to pay such outgoings.

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

( the handout they get on retirement as well as a generous pension )

Its a good deal for those the public sector, as they are the ones who get it on retirement. Its not such a good deal for the exchequer, the country at large, and by implication the 1,800,000 million people in the private sector.a




I never said its "so much money in their pension that no matter how many luxury holidays they have they can't spend it"

However, if you have a wide circle of friends at all and know them fairly well, odds are you probably know a few public servants sunning themselves in Spain or Portugal in their villas as we speak



As I said, there is no such thing as a free luch for 300,000...not all day every day. Anyone defending public sector pensions, after seeing that half hour exposure on RTE , should be ashamed of themselves, given the stae of our economy and our borrowing to pay such outgoings.

Jimmmy, we've moved on. And this is about unions not ps pensions.

Oh, and the only person I know with a place in Spain is private sector. Moving on again.

So, did you demand a paycut for the good of the country?

And there's not 1.8 billion in the private sector in Ireland.

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

I never said its "so much money in their pension that no matter how many luxury holidays they have they can't spend it"

Oh Jimmmy, you just cant help it, you are a spoofer extraordinaire. I've bolded the important part here. But I do stand corrected, it was "numerous luxury holidays"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055528924

Post number 8.

True. I am glad that RTE, ( even though I suspect they are not as short of a few bob as many others when they retire ) finally made a programme that has started exposing the truth. I was going on about public sector pensions here over the past week on another thread and most of what I got was criticism. The whole pensions thing is a scandal. It was highlighted to me when a few friends who are retired public servants told me their extremely high pensions, which even they admitted were way too high. They told me the figures in confidence so I cannot divulge them. Suffice to say it is far more than they can spend, even with numerous luxury holidays abroad etc.
Spare a thought for the people who , not having public sector pension to look forward to, slaved 60 to 70 hours a week for years , without holidays, in order to have a few bob to educate their children , pay for retirement / future bills etc - only to lost most of this money because they were unpatriotic enough to invest it in the Irish economy ( the blue chip shares eg AIB, B of I, and section 27 buy to let property investment - now empty and in negative equity - which the govt encouraged ).

jimmmy

dresden8 wrote: »

Jimmmy, we've moved on. And this is about unions not ps pensions. .

Ah but the unions were responsible for negiotating the excessive public sector pay and pensions bill, currently costing this little country something like 20 billion each and every year as far as I am aware

dresden8 wrote: »

Oh, and the only person I know with a place in Spain is private sector. Moving on again..

The last people I know with a place in Spain and Portugal are well paid by the government

dresden8 wrote: »

So, did you demand a paycut for the good of the country?.

I did not demand anything. The market place decides...and many people have suffered a cut in earnings already, be they self employed or employees in the private sector

dresden8 wrote: »

And there's not 1.8 billion in the private sector in Ireland.

oops sorry, a typing mistake. Actually, 1,800,000 million is not 1.8 billion anyway, so you are wrong there too.

jimmmy

dresden8 wrote: »

Oh Jimmmy, you just cant help it, you are a spoofer extraordinaire. I've bolded the important part here. But I do stand corrected, it was "numerous luxury holidays"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055528924

Post number 8.

You were talking about clerical officers and their near 60,000 "gratuity" when you wrote about " so much money in their pension that no matter how many luxury holidays they have they can't spend it"

Please keep your quotes in context. When I wrote about the " numerous luxury holidays" it referred to " a few friends who are retired public servants"

Read carefully next time dresden8 !

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

Ah but the unions were responsible for negiotating the excessive public sector pay and pensions bill, currently costing this little country something like 20 billion each and every year as far as I am aware .

They were negotiated by the government. The one we all voted for apparently.

jimmmy wrote: »

I did not demand anything. The market place decides...and many people have suffered a cut in earnings already, be they self employed or employees in the private sector .

Or indeed the public sector.

jimmmy wrote: »

oops sorry, a typing mistake. Actually, 1,800,000 million is not 1.8 billion anyway, so you are wrong there too.

You're right I underestimated you ability to mis-count. How silly am I?

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

You were talking about clerical officers and their near 60,000 "gratuity" when you wrote about " so much money in their pension that no matter how many luxury holidays they have they can't spend it"

Please keep your quotes in context. When I wrote about the " numerous luxury holidays" it referred to " a few friends who are retired public servants"

Read carefully next time dresden8 !

You're the one who tried to paint 360,000 public servants as on a gravy train because they couldn't spend their pension.

If you examine the flow of that thread your ridiculous statements came before my reasoned rebuttal.

But then again Jimmmy, you don't do facts, you KNOW!

jimmmy

dresden8 wrote: »

You're the one who tried to paint 360,000 public servants as on a gravy train because they couldn't spend their pension.

Rubbish : I never said they could not all spend their pension, or anything to that effect. There is a difference between the personal experiences of "few people" who I know well, and the experiences of hundreds of thousands , y'know.

dresden8

Jimmmy, smileys don't make up for being caught out as a spoofer.

But what about the unions?

Lemming

dresden8 wrote: »

On another tangent, how many non-union people who negotiated their own salary negotiated downwards for the sake of the company and the country during their negotiations?

I did in order to get another job since I'd been laid off. And many of my friends have also taken pay cuts in order to protect their jobs in whatever way they can.

Why would you expect unions to do this?

Lets see ... it goes something like this; Which would one prefer?

• 75-90% of current salary
• €204 a week sitting on the dole in an incredibly vulnerable position both financially and employment-wise (in seeking new employment)

Anyone who picks option b because they're too out of touch with reality to accept a reduction deserves everything coming to them.

How many companies willingly cut their profit margins for the good of the consumer and the country?

Errm .... cutting of profit margins is called "market forces" and happens whether in recession or not. Either your company adapts or it folds. Those are the two options available. Take your pick. I would be of the view that the unions, whilst not causing the problem, are by no means helping and indeed appear to be obsessed with driving matters ever downward into the darkness (e.g. Dublin Bus and overtime for full-time drivers as opposed to fleet reductions and layoffs for part-time drivers)

jimmmy

dresden8 wrote: »

They were negotiated by the government. The one we all voted for apparently.

Ah shure that makes it all right so. As long as they were negotiated by the government it must all be fine.

dresden8 wrote: »

Or indeed the public sector.

The public sector has not suffered pay cuts ; merely a pensions levy. The pension is still subsidised.

dresden8 wrote: »

You're right I underestimated you ability to mis-count. How silly am I?

Obvious typing mistakes apart, at least I know 1,800,000 million is not 1.8 billion , unlike you.

dresden8

Lemming wrote: »

I did in order to get another job since I'd been laid off.

So, you deliberately decided to pitch lower for the good of the company or the country?

Are you sure you weren't forced to do it?

dresden8

So Jimmmy, how many ps pensioners can spend their pensions and how many can't.

You've set yourself up as the boards.ie pension expert. I await your expert analysis. (Insert useless smiley sh1te here)

Lemming

dresden8 wrote: »

So, you deliberately decided to pitch lower for the good of the company or the country?

Are you sure you weren't forced to do it?

Jesus Dresden8 ... what drugs are you on because they sound like a total escape from reality and a hell of a lot of fun. I'd like to get some if you don't mind. What is so f*cking difficult for you to grasp? That people might recognise the reality of the situation and see a long term view that requires a short-term hit?

I.
Took.
A.
PayCut.
To.
Get.
Another.
F.U.C.K.I.N.G.
Job.

because the market is in rag order and companies are incredibly reluctant to hire because they either don't have the money and/or are unsure as to where their next block of work/income is coming from. Quite a few of my friends have also been asked to take paycuts as well and they have.

Which part of the above do you not understand?

jimmmy

dresden8 wrote: »

So Jimmmy, how many ps pensioners can spend their pensions and how many can't.

I do not spy on 300,000 odd people. Ask your friends in the C.S.O.

I think the thing that was obvious in the RTE programme though , the common thread, was how generous the public sector pensions are.

Highsider

I would never drive a forklift and sweep the floor. Soooooo degrading TBH.

McCruiskeen

Dresden8, you show such little understanding of reality, it's almost frightening that you have a vote.

Hillel

jimmmy wrote:

I did not demand anything. The market place decides...and many people have suffered a cut in earnings already, be they self employed or employees in the private sector .

dresden8 wrote:

Or indeed the public sector.

That's the nub of the problem, dresden8. The market DOES NOT decide in the case of the Public Service. If it did, Public Sector wages would be falling in line with those in the private sector. This is the direct result of the power of public sector unions and the governments unwillingness to stand up to them. To that extent, the unions are partially to blame for the situation we are now in.

dresden8

Lemming wrote: »

Jesus Dresden8 ... what drugs are you on because they sound like a total escape from reality and a hell of a lot of fun. I'd like to get some if you don't mind. What is so f*cking difficult for you to grasp? That people might recognise the reality of the situation and see a long term view that requires a short-term hit?

I.
Took.
A.
PayCut.
To.
Get.
Another.
F.U.C.K.I.N.G.
Job.

because the market is in rag order and companies are incredibly reluctant to hire because they either don't have the money and/or are unsure as to where their next block of work/income is coming from. Quite a few of my friends have also been asked to take paycuts as well and they have.

Which part of the above do you not understand?

So we're agreed then, you didn't willingly take a pay cut..

Where are the unions in this?

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

I do not spy on 300,000 odd people. Ask your friends in the C.S.O.

I think the thing that was obvious in the RTE programme though , the common thread, was how generous the public sector pensions are.

So, we're agreed Jimmmy, that RTE programme was not representative of 300,000 or so odd people you have represented it to be. We're making progress.

dresden8

McCruiskeen wrote: »

Dresden8, you show such little understanding of reality, it's almost frightening that you have a vote.

What little understanding have I shown?

Lemming

dresden8 wrote: »

So we're agreed then, you didn't willingly take a pay cut..

Dresden8 .... my options were as follows;

• Sit on the dole (€204 /w) doing nothing, letting my skillset lapse thus becoming harder and harder to find employment
• Continue to insist on salary parity with new employers, if not an increase, thus pricing myself out of the market and ensuring continued sitting on the dole
• Drop my salary level to make myself more competitive with the thousands of others all seeking the same job as me. In doing so, convincing whatever company being applied for that you are worth the risk and will be of benefit to them as well.

The above is the reality "on the ground" if you are so unfortunate enough to find yourself staring at it. It's not pretty. It's really not pretty. And to be perfectly honest, I find your incredulous assertions that I - or anyone else - would willignly lower their salary levels to ensure that they have a job to go to in the morning to be the height of utter f*cking ignorance and shockingly arrogant.

I did the above. Many of my friends have done the above. Just ... deal with the fact that your apparently hypothetical question that you guffawed has actually been answered and not in a way you expected.

dresden8

Hillel wrote: »

That's the nub of the problem, dresden8. The market DOES NOT decide in the case of the Public Service. If it did, Public Sector wages would be falling in line with those in the private sector. This is the direct result of the power of public sector unions and the governments unwillingness to stand up to them. To that extent, the unions are partially to blame for the situation we are now in.

Agreed.

To deflate the economy and make it competitive again a number of things have to happen.

Prices have to fall. (Some, but not enough)
Rents have to fall (To facilitate the above)
Taxes have to fall. (To facilitate the above)
Public sector pay has to fall.(To facilitate the above)
A ton of other crap has to happen (To facilitate the above.)

What the government has done is target the same easy targets again. PAYE got hit twice in six months while the rich can't be touched until the report of the commission of taxation comes in. I'm sure the report of the commission on taxation will re-assure us that the rich can't be touched as this would unbalance the economy.

This public/private sector battle is a smokescreen dreamt up by FF and IBEC to split the working classes. Don't fall for the hype.

I'd like to remind boardsies that the unions recently voted not to go on strike. A touch different from the idea of unions that are always on strike.

dresden8

Hillel wrote: »

@dresden8 I agree, McCruiskeen was being too generous. You have shown NO understanding whatsoever. Hope that clears it up for you.

That's true, as a ps union member I have refused to be scapegoated by the likes of Jimmmy and his alleged friends.

I invite you to examine our cross-posting issues.

dresden8

Lemming wrote: »

Dresden8 .... my options were as follows;

• Sit on the dole (€204 /w) doing nothing, letting my skillset lapse thus becoming harder and harder to find employment
• Continue to insist on salary parity with new employers, if not an increase, thus pricing myself out of the market and ensuring continued sitting on the dole
• Drop my salary level to make myself more competitive with the thousands of others all seeking the same job as me. In doing so, convincing whatever company being applied for that you are worth the risk and will be of benefit to them as well.

The above is the reality "on the ground" if you are so unfortunate enough to find yourself staring at it. It's not pretty. It's really not pretty. And to be perfectly honest, I find your incredulous assertions that I - or anyone else - would willignly lower their salary levels to ensure that they have a job to go to in the morning to be the height of utter f*cking ignorance and shockingly arrogant.

I did the above. Many of my friends have done the above. Just ... deal with the fact that your apparently hypothetical question that you guffawed has actually been answered and not in a way you expected.

I think you've proved my point. You didn't willingly negotiate yourself downward. You took it up the ass.

McCruiskeen

dresden8 wrote: »

What little understanding have I shown?

I think I'll refer to the wise words on lemmings signature on this one.

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

Adios