How to deal with the public sector and the unions

Rantan

Moomoo1 wrote: »

maybe if there was a union to protect your rights you wouldn't have been made redundant so easily?

moo moo, unions cannot create the projects that give employment, as work dries up people lose jobs it's a fact union or no union.

No government spending = no contracts = no job.

All a union can really do is fight for better redancy terms. This contractor has shed over 100 jobs in the last 6 months and more to come. Some unionised others like me, not. The union demanded increased redundancy terms and threatened strike which would have lead to closure for the company due to the nature of some of our contracts. The company was forced to pay up which has lead to a serious cash flow problem which in turn has lead to further job loses for office staff like me but what do the unions care?? I think your comment reinforces my opinion "..you just dont get it."

Deadalus

Rantan wrote: »

I'm new to boards so bear with me, I got notice of redundancy last week for the second time in a year. I work in the civ eng industry so its no surprise, I did well to get this far!! I will be on the scratcher for Christmas. My wife works a three day week, her hours were reduced earlier this year. She had no option, no choice and she doesn't get any dole for the days she doesn't work. She is probably going to lose her job early in the new year and unfortunatley due to the fact that she was self employed for a brief period some time ago there is a strong chance will not be entitled to any dole for some time. I would take any work opportunity that came along but there is nothing out there, I have been looking for some time, for anything, in advance of redundancy. So when I hear union bleaters cry and wail and moan it boils my p**s!! If people fully understood the nature and depth of the crisis we face, there would not be a discussion about cuts to pay, spending and numbers in the public sector. What needed to happen would happen and as a country we could move on, hopefully towards a position of some stabillity, unfortunatley while unions and government continue to circle each other more people lose their jobs. There are nearly 500,000 people unemployed at present and this will rise. Just consider that figure for one second. So to people like deadalus to quote George Hook "....you just dont get it..." and I dont want to hear the union line of "...we sympathise with people who have lost jobs but...blah blah blah..."

Right mate why don't you just have a read back over my posts and tell me where exactly I just don't get it. I'm not delusional, I understand the country is in a terribly state and this affects my partner also so we have had to cut back as she has taken a 10% pay cut. I'm not oblivious to the countrys' problems. I was talking about ways to implement cuts in such a way that the lower paid Public Servants might be able to take and not be left in real trouble financially. You seem to just want to throw a long rant out against the public service - well it might surprise you that my work address is not Mr. Public Servant, Public Service building, Dublin 4.


Do you want me to come on here and say I should be sacked tomorrow cause the country is broke? To be honest it wouldn't be much of a pay reduction for me to be put on the dole but I hate the thoughts of going on social welfare as does every decent person in this country but I guess in your eyes the fact that I wont throw myself on the sword and ask to be sacked rules me out as a decent person.

There are about 300,000 public servants? Am I right in saving this? So if we sack 100,000 of them then we will 600,000 people on the dole. Will that make you happy. Will that satisfy your anger?

Rantan

Deadalus wrote: »

I was talking about ways to implement cuts in such a way that the lower paid Public Servants might be able to take and not be left in real trouble financially.


To be perfectly honest moomoo - yes. I'm sorry to say it but if that is what is takes to fix the problem we are in well then absolutely. That is what I mean by you dont get it. If your not feeling pain after a pay cut they havent taken enough in my book. If its cheaper to put 100,000 of you on the dole than pay your salaries it should be done. Social welfare will be cut in the next budget so there will be enough to go around for all of us(tongue in cheek)!! Sorry for sounding crass about it. You say lower paid public servants shouldn;t be left in financial trouble, but if the money is not there to pay you in the first place as we all know its not how can that be possible? My employer and thousands others are in the same position. They cannot pay us therefore we lose our jobs.

And yes I am really angry, and yes I am having a rant, and I intend to spend a lot more ranting over the coming weeks as I will have the time to. But I thought that was the point of a forum like this - I know that is why I registered anyway.

Deadalus

Rantan wrote: »

Deadalus wrote: »

I was talking about ways to implement cuts in such a way that the lower paid Public Servants might be able to take and not be left in real trouble financially.


To be perfectly honest moomoo - yes. I'm sorry to say it but if that is what is takes to fix the problem we are in well then absolutely. That is what I mean by you dont get it. If your not feeling pain after a pay cut they havent taken enough in my book. If its cheaper to put 100,000 of you on the dole than pay your salaries it should be done. Social welfare will be cut in the next budget so there will be enough to go around for all of us(tongue in cheek)!! Sorry for sounding crass about it. You say lower paid public servants shouldn;t be left in financial trouble, but if the money is not there to pay you in the first place as we all know its not how can that be possible? My employer and thousands others are in the same position. They cannot pay us therefore we lose our jobs.

And yes I am really angry, and yes I am having a rant, and I intend to spend a lot more ranting over the coming weeks as I will have the time to. But I thought that was the point of a forum like this - I know that is why I registered anyway.

Im pretty sure that was directed at me not moomoo.

So you say yourself that you are here to rant well by all means go nuts. I was talking with other posters about how to minimise the impact of cuts on lower paid public servants such as more effcient staff deployment but to hell with that lets just sack them all. Cry havock and let loose the dogs of war!!! Somebody declare war on another country so this guy can really vent his anger.

I said nothing about not putting anybody in financial trouble I was simply looking at ways we can do it without making people destitute. But then again we are all just numbers not people right.

baalthor

SLUSK wrote: »

Step 1: Slash public sector salaries to get it in line with budget.
Step 2: If someone takes strike action fire these individuals.
Step 3: If the unions send in their goons to cause alot of trouble send in the police to bust some heads.

This solution has been tried and tested in many countries with good results. If Margaret Thatcher had the balls to do it why could you not find a leader in Ireland willing to do this?

Here the police are actually taking part in the protests so I don't think we'll see much head busting ....

irish_bob

Rob67 wrote: »

If you reduce pay, the govt would never hire more staff! The point is to reduce cost/expenditure, to do so the govt is going to do cut pay AND staffing numbers in all areas of the public service and not bother about the consequences of their actions and the effect it will have on personnel and more importantly, services.




Govt will not hire more front-line staff, they will wait until there is a crisis before they will do that, just to show the populace that they are a 'pro-active' govt and are concerned for the well being of the people who are adversely affected by it.

Pay will be cut and personnel will be reduced, services will suffer as a result.

But that will only come after the entire general public complain in sufficient numbers to warrant it.

Due to the media savvy war that the govt waged against the public service over the last 18 months, I don't expect a lot of people will be in support of the ordinary PS worker, front-line and back-room.

Just looked this and I realised how aggressive it looked, I'm beginning to sound like a union rep!

Anyhoo... I used to be in the public sector and I worked in an area that was cut wayyy back in 98, personnel wise. As a result, I ended up doing a job that included taking on responsibilities that were, in some cases, 3-4 levels above mine and yet I was still held responsible if things went awry even though I never received pay commensurate with the job! I finally decided I'd had enough and walked away from it this year to go into the private sector.

The point I'm trying to make is, even though you can make people work for less money and do more work, eventually they'll get ticked off and walk. I can guarantee you though it won't be the slackers who'll leave, it will be the staff who do the job to the best of their ability who will go, leaving the slackers (who will not work any faster or harder) in the job. Thus, services will be affected.

eoghan harris put it well today , the facts have formed people in the private sectors opinions , not the media

25 - 40% higher pay
on average 14 sick days taken per year in the civil service
shorter working weeks
absolute job security
rock solid pensions

it is not only recycled union rhetoric to claim that those in the private sector who believe ps workers have had it too good , it is condescending in the extreme to make us out to be glove puppets of independant newspapers etc , we dont need any media outlet to tell us what we knew already and have witnessed for years

Rob67

irish_bob wrote: »

eoghan harris put it well today , the facts have formed people in the private sectors opinions , not the media

Yet here you're quoting someone from the media?

25 - 40% higher pay
on average 14 sick days taken per year in the civil service
shorter working weeks
absolute job security
rock solid pensions

You are stating this as a generalisation, just as the media have done, when the facts are really quite different.
What you are now claiming is that all Public Servants earn 40% more than the Private Sector? I thought the last report said 26%? Maybe I'm wrong... where did this come from?

Sick leave, sadly I could believe it to be true. But the same could be said for the Private Sector if the true facts could be quantified and analysed, but the Private Sector is not open to public scrutiny is it?

Job security? Not since 94-95 when all new entrants are held accountable. I can this for true because I compiled the necessary documentation to discharge an individual for failure to keep within the rules and I am quite aware of many other similar situations.

Pensions? Not our fault, that was the contract that was offered, you can't make changes to it and to be honest, if it had been offered to you would you have turned it down, be honest now....!

it is not only recycled union rhetoric to claim that those on the private sector who believe ps workers have had it too good , it is condescending in the extreme to make us out to be glove puppets of independant newspapers etc , we dont need any media outlet to tell us what we knew already and have witnessed for years

Firstly, just to let you know, I've never been a member of a union. This is my personal opinion.

If you feel I have been condescending, you are easily offended. It is strange though, that no-one was so affronted just as the boom years were starting, when no-one wanted to work in the Public Services and when these fantastic pensions were on offer? And I don't expect anyone to be looking for a Public Sector job any time soon either because those pensions will be gone forever, if the government get their way.

Of course the media played its part, that's what its there for, to stimulate debate and define society, to point out the good guy and the bad guy. At the moment its the Public Service and the banks. Remember when the media pointed its finger at the priesthood? Every priest got tarred with the same brush, yet it was a minority that had committed those despicable acts. All driven by a media frenzy. Who here can honestly say that they didn't feel uncomfortable around a priest at times?

Where did you get all this information? Did you make it your mission to dig it out yourself? I really don't think so, I can safely assume you got it from a media outlet or possibly from the usual myths that are generated at the bar that become fact when said enough times.

And more to the point did I mention a media outlet? No I didn't, I didn't even infer one. Get your 'facts' straight first.

Rantan

Deadalus wrote: »

Rantan wrote: »

Im pretty sure that was directed at me not moomoo.

So you say yourself that you are here to rant well by all means go nuts. I was talking with other posters about how to minimise the impact of cuts on lower paid public servants such as more effcient staff deployment but to hell with that lets just sack them all. Cry havock and let loose the dogs of war!!! Somebody declare war on another country so this guy can really vent his anger.

I said nothing about not putting anybody in financial trouble I was simply looking at ways we can do it without making people destitute. But then again we are all just numbers not people right.

Appologies for misdirected rant, yes that was for you Deadalus. Now that the fog of war has lifted....You appear to be saying that you are prepared to take cuts on board, but not if it makes things too difficult. Cuts are painful. In a way you are reinforcing my point. Me and the 500,000 other mostly private sector workers have to come to terms with destitution/unemployment call it what you want. We have no choice in the matter. Market forces dictate our future. So why should there be one rule for us and another for public sector? Are we not all part of the same economy?
What has really angered me recently as opposed to the opinions of individual public sector workers like youself, to be honest, is the fact that unions are prepared to strike in opposition to cuts or reductions. To me who will be out of work soon that is the biggest insult of all.

hallelujajordan

Rob67 wrote:

What you are now claiming is that all Public Servants earn 40% more than the Private Sector? I thought the last report said 26%? Maybe I'm wrong... where did this come from?

He never claimed that. He pointed to the evidence from various different reports that stated that the differential ranges between 25 and 40%

Sick leave, sadly I could believe it to be true. But the same could be said for the Private Sector if the true facts could be quantified and analysed, but the Private Sector is not open to public scrutiny is it?

Rubbish, And I will tell you why, In the private sector we are accountable for the utilisation of our employees. I run a department in a large organisation and in my group there are 200 people. If any of them are out for more than 10 days in a rolling 12 month period they cease to get paid for their sick days and they enter our performance management process. I typically have 2-3 people in this process at any point in time and our average sick leave is somewhere in the region of 2-3 days per year.

Job security? Not since 94-95 when all new entrants are held accountable. I can this for true because I compiled the necessary documentation to discharge an individual for failure to keep within the rules and I am quite aware of many other similar situations.

I think he was probably talking about job security, regardless of the need for your position, your performance or the economic situation. I would hope that if someone is not following the rules then they are dismissed and am amazed that such a mechanism wasn't in place prior to 94/95

Pensions? Not our fault, that was the contract that was offered, you can't make changes to it and to be honest, if it had been offered to you would you have turned it down, be honest now....!

Nobody is saying it is your fault and I'm quite sure I would have embraced it with open arms . . . but that doesnt mean that it shouldn't be corrected !

hallelujajordan

Here is my biggest problem with the Unions. . . According to Congress website they have 832,000 members nationwide. . . Now we know there are only 300,000 Public sector workers in Ireland so assuming they are all union members (I don't know if this is true), then that means that nearly two thirds of ICTU's fee-paying members belong to the Private Sector. But yet, Jack O'Connor, David Begg et al make it a fundamental cornerstone of their government negotiations that there should be no cuts to the public sector paybill . . a position that, at best has the support of about one third of its membership !

Who is representing the Private Sector union members who on average achieve salaries 25-40% lower than their public counterparts, who have seen their pensions decimated and who face increased taxes in December if the unions have their way. And more to the point, why are the 532,000 private sector union members continuing to pay their union fees ? ?

Rob67

hallelujajordan wrote: »

He never claimed that. He pointed to the evidence from various different reports that stated that the differential ranges between 25 and 40%

Do you think that such a range is too much of a generalisation? It can leave the reader with a potential misconception of the pay levels within the PS.

Rubbish, And I will tell you why, In the private sector we are accountable for the utilisation of our employees. I run a department in a large organisation and in my group there are 200 people. If any of them are out for more than 10 days in a rolling 12 month period they cease to get paid for their sick days and they enter our performance management process. I typically have 2-3 people in this process at any point in time and our average sick leave is somewhere in the region of 2-3 days per year.

Well then, you run a tight operation and should be commended, unfortunately those processes are not in effect in the PS, they should be, so as to create an industrial norm.

I think he was probably talking about job security, regardless of the need for your position, your performance or the economic situation. I would hope that if someone is not following the rules then they are dismissed and am amazed that such a mechanism wasn't in place prior to 94/95

In the Army those rules always existed in relation to discipline, now they also encompass contractual obligations, failure to comply or be long term sick, will ensure discharge. I can't answer for the Civil Service.

Nobody is saying it is your fault and I'm quite sure I would have embraced it with open arms . . . but that doesnt mean that it shouldn't be corrected

I agree to a certain extent, the pension system needs to change, again to industry norms, somehow I don't think it will ever happen.

Rantan

Most of the 532, 000 other private sector union members are probably the unemployed construction and manufacturing workers laid off in the last two years.

irish_bob

Rob67 wrote: »

irish_bob wrote: »

Yet here you're quoting someone from the media?



You are stating this as a generalisation, just as the media have done, when the facts are really quite different.
What you are now claiming is that all Public Servants earn 40% more than the Private Sector? I thought the last report said 26%? Maybe I'm wrong... where did this come from?

Sick leave, sadly I could believe it to be true. But the same could be said for the Private Sector if the true facts could be quantified and analysed, but the Private Sector is not open to public scrutiny is it?

Job security? Not since 94-95 when all new entrants are held accountable. I can this for true because I compiled the necessary documentation to discharge an individual for failure to keep within the rules and I am quite aware of many other similar situations.

Pensions? Not our fault, that was the contract that was offered, you can't make changes to it and to be honest, if it had been offered to you would you have turned it down, be honest now....!



Firstly, just to let you know, I've never been a member of a union. This is my personal opinion.

If you feel I have been condescending, you are easily offended. It is strange though, that no-one was so affronted just as the boom years were starting, when no-one wanted to work in the Public Services and when these fantastic pensions were on offer? And I don't expect anyone to be looking for a Public Sector job any time soon either because those pensions will be gone forever, if the government get their way.

Of course the media played its part, that's what its there for, to stimulate debate and define society, to point out the good guy and the bad guy. At the moment its the Public Service and the banks. Remember when the media pointed its finger at the priesthood? Every priest got tarred with the same brush, yet it was a minority that had committed those despicable acts. All driven by a media frenzy. Who here can honestly say that they didn't feel uncomfortable around a priest at times?

Where did you get all this information? Did you make it your mission to dig it out yourself? I really don't think so, I can safely assume you got it from a media outlet or possibly from the usual myths that are generated at the bar that become fact when said enough times.

And more to the point did I mention a media outlet? No I didn't, I didn't even infer one. Get your 'facts' straight first.

the claim that no one wanted to work in the public sector during the boom is a union invention , one that adds to the narrative of how the public sector are a persecuted class who missed thier chance during the boom to become the next founder of a GOOGLE , besides , over 85,000 employeese were added to the states staff list in the past decade , seems many were willing to sign up to serve mother ireland

Rob67

irish_bob wrote: »

Rob67 wrote: »

the claim that no one wanted to work in the public sector during the boom is a union invention , one that adds to the narrative of how the public sector are a persecuted class who missed thier chance during the boom to become the next founder of a GOOGLE , besides , over 85,000 employeese were added to the states staff list in the past decade , seems many were willing to sign up to serve mother ireland

I'm sorry to point this out to you but you're very wrong, for the years 1998 to 2005 the Army (as part of the public service) could not fill the quota of recruits due to the boom years. It took a high profile campaign to start getting people in again, of course now that there is a recession on that position is reversed, unfortunately the Army won't be recruiting for a long time now.

Perhaps it would be better to see those 85,000 as individuals who had the foresight to set themselves up in a reasonably secure job, minus those who were on temporary/ specific term contract. I don't have a breakdown of those figures, so please afford me a little leeway on this.

I never claimed to be persecuted. There is a mentality with some Public Servants were that might be true, but not with me. I served during some of the most difficult times the Army had to go through (DF strength cut by 1,750 pers in 1998, units shut down and barracks closed in the middle of a boom), I was just glad to have a job at the end of it.

I served my country proudly and would have continued to do so, save that it was no longer economically viable to continue to do so.

HollyB

Deadalus wrote: »

How about a 4 day week but actually being allowed to collect the dole for the fifth day the same as people who have been put on a 4 day week in the private sector. If I volunteer to take a 4 day week I can't collect the dole. I have to be forced into it. I would volunteer if that was available to me.

I don't know if you can claim the dole for a four-day week.

If not, then taking jimmmy's €973/week average public sector salary as correct, putting everybody in the public sector on a four-day week would save €194.60/week for every public sector employee. With 370,000 public sector employees, this would mean a saving of €72 million a week.

P. Breathnach

HollyB wrote: »

I don't know if you can claim the dole for a four-day week.

If not, then taking jimmmy's €973/week average public sector salary as correct, putting everybody in the public sector on a four-day week would save €194.60/week for every public sector employee. With 370,000 public sector employees, this would mean a saving of €72 million a week.

How would parents feel about schools working a four-day week?

HollyB

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How would parents feel about schools working a four-day week?

Probably as ticked off as people would feel about waiting times for processing taking 25% longer, or having hospitals, Gardaí, fire services, etc, working at 80% of normal strength.

I'd be curious to know how many of those promoting the idea of a 20% pay cut for the public sector would be willing to accept proportionately reduced services.

starbelgrade

HollyB wrote: »

Probably as ticked off as people would feel about waiting times for processing taking 25% longer, or having hospitals, Gardaí, fire services, etc, working at 80% of normal strength.

I'd be curious to know how many of those promoting the idea of a 20% pay cut for the public sector would be willing to accept proportionately reduced services.

The threat of reducing Public Sector wages will have no impact on the output or productivity of the PS workers. Quite the opposite. That is an inherint problem with giving people permanent, pensionable jobs. Benchmarking is a cushy number, performance related pay is a different ballgame altogether.

Firetrap

There are about 300,000 public servants? Am I right in saving this? So if we sack 100,000 of them then we will 600,000 people on the dole. Will that make you happy. Will that satisfy your anger?

If you sack 100,000 public servants, that's 100,000 less people who will be in a position to spend money in the wider economy. But that's alright :rolleyes:

TCP/IP_King

SLUSK wrote: »

Margaret Thatcher ... was a true statesman ....

I thought she was a maiden, albeit an iron one.

Maybe that was the band

TCP/IP_King

Rantan wrote: »

Deadalus wrote: »

To me who will be out of work soon that is the biggest insult of all.

"The Government is paying €54bn for loans that have a value of €47bn" is the biggest insult to anyone out of work in this country.

Kalashnikov_Kid

SLUSK wrote: »

Margaret Thatcher had somewhat similar policies during the great strikes in Britain. She stood up against the union and saved Britain. She was a true statesman unlike the Irish politicians who sell out Ireland to special interest groups.

History will remember Margaret Thatcher as a great hero, no one will remember Ahern and Cowen.

Wow, what an utterly simplified one-sided viewpoint. Systematically destroying the indigenous manufacturing industries to create today's wonders of Canary Wharf and the most extortionate private train companies in Europe. You call that heroic?

And yet, people wonder why the UK lags behind Germany and France today. It's largely because of the above and much more - many people fail to recognise that the UK economy of 60million people has the very same problems today as the Irish one - over-dependence on imports, lack of indigenous manufacturing base, under-resourced vocational education systems, thus becoming highly vulnerable to global market conditions. Yet the French and Germans, already out of recession, are smirking at the British and their half-baked attempts of getting out of the red via 'quantitative easing' i.e. printing more money!

Bigger does not mean better!

givyjoe81

HollyB wrote: »

Probably as ticked off as people would feel about waiting times for processing taking 25% longer, or having hospitals, Gardaí, fire services, etc, working at 80% of normal strength.

I'd be curious to know how many of those promoting the idea of a 20% pay cut for the public sector would be willing to accept proportionately reduced services.

So when your benchmarked pay rises kicked in over the last few years,did you work proportionately harder/more?? Each time you got an incremental rise or otherwise??

Rantan

yes I agree, but what is the alternative? Unfortunaltely that is the mess we have been left in by our government. I am paying the price can I assume you are too by your comment?

Rantan

TCP/IP_King wrote: »

Rantan wrote: »

"The Government is paying €54bn for loans that have a value of €47bn" is the biggest insult to anyone out of work in this country.

yes I agree, but what is the alternative? Unfortunaltely that is the mess we have been left in by our government. I am paying the price can I assume you are too by your comment?

Deadalus

On a side note was anybody in Kobra on Leeson st. last Thursday night? There was a Bank of Ireland work party on and they had free drink vouchers!!!:eek:

I almost went up to a group of them and said you do realise thats taxpayers money that was used to bail out your bank that your using to buy drinks with.

Imagine if a public sector department had a staff night out these days with a few free drinks. There would be holy war. I can see the headline in the independant now -" Public servants pissing taxpayers money away"

Sizzler

Deadalus wrote: »

On a side note was anybody in Kobra on Leeson st. last Thursday night? There was a Bank of Ireland work party on and they had free drink vouchers!!!:eek:

I almost went up to a group of them and said you do realise thats taxpayers money that was used to bail out your bank that your using to buy drinks with.

Imagine if a public sector department had a staff night out these days with a few free drinks. There would be holy war. I can see the headline in the independant now -" Public servants pissing taxpayers money away"

I'm sure shareholders would make the same argument though?

Rantan

Deadalus wrote: »

On a side note was anybody in Kobra on Leeson st. last Thursday night? There was a Bank of Ireland work party on and they had free drink vouchers!!!:eek:

I almost went up to a group of them and said you do realise thats taxpayers money that was used to bail out your bank that your using to buy drinks with.

Imagine if a public sector department had a staff night out these days with a few free drinks. There would be holy war. I can see the headline in the independant now -" Public servants pissing taxpayers money away"

Deadalus, you are making this too easy - I know people who have been taken out to free meals and events where the wine flowed - all on the Government dept bill. My wife(not a public servant) - through her work - attended a meal two weeks ago for 20 or so civil servants, all on the tax payer.
I appreciate this does not permeate through all levels and obviously you and your colleagues are not involved in this type of activity and operate outside of this Fas type of existence but it is still happening. I am not dreaming this s**t up - it is real! Hence my anger.

Deadalus

Rantan wrote: »

Deadalus, you are making this too easy - I know people who have been taken out to free meals and events where the wine flowed - all on the Government dept bill. My wife(not a public servant) - through her work - attended a meal two weeks ago for 20 or so civil servants, all on the tax payer.
I appreciate this does not permeate through all levels and obviously you and your colleagues are not involved in this type of activity and operate outside of this Fas type of existence but it is still happening. I am not dreaming this s**t up - it is real! Hence my anger.

Rantan what exactly am I making too easy for you? Seriously what have I done to warrant your anger. If you look back over my posts you wont see me saving that I agree with the unions approach or that cuts should'nt be made. Are you so blinded by your anger, which you should probobly seek help with because it sounds like you might have a problem, that anybody that is a public servant and makes any comment must be in some way contributing to making your life difficult.

Should you not be equally angry about private sector companies wasteing money that was pumped into them to keep them from going bust with both yours and my taxes?

I was initially sorry to hear about your job problems as I would be with anyone but I'm beginning to think that maybe you just have some sort of emotional problem and that is why you might be in trouble at work.

For what its worth I have yet to have a free dinner from any company I have ever worked in both private and public.

Rantan

Imagine if a public sector department had a staff night out these days with a few free drinks. There would be holy war. I can see the headline in the independant now -" Public servants pissing taxpayers money away"[/quote]

Deadalus - see your quote above - you are saying this is not happening in the public sector, my last post was a response to this in which I claimed you are wrong and this waste of tax payers money is still rife, can you address this point please and not waste time trying to physco analyse my posts?