24th Nov Strikes... What a joke

Sizzler

bonzos wrote: »

I am a private sector worker who up until a few weeks ago was on the dole,i got a job for 6 week on upgrading work in 2 state offices in my local area....i was delighted to get work even if is only for 6 weeks!the level of waste i have witnessed in the past few weeks is unreal,countless cigarette+ tea breaks every day,most people bring a paper or a book with them to work and seem to have time to read it during working hours,supervisors ignoring constant dosing and every excuse ben used to complain that we are prevenying them from working....its a disgrace!!!!we were told yesterday that if we entered the buliding today the guards would be called and we would be arrested for tresspassing....these people(not all of them) dont need pay cuts ....they need to be sacked for ripping off our country,i passed the building today several times and only a handfull of people outside.they are dragging our country into the ground!!!!!!

Can you say what government department you work in?

Sadly the story you have portrayed is the too common tale in the civil service, I think you will find that even the staunchest public sector worker will agree that there is utter wastage on the admin side and the slack work practice is inherently part of the culture.

My mates sister did 4 years in UCD and got a job in the dept of agriculture back in 2001, she stayed a year.Despite it being her first job she saw nothing but people walking around chatting, reading papers, taking tea & smoke breaks and very flexible working hours. Ironically herself and 2 others were busy and kept going but this was far outweighed by codgers taking the pi$$ and nobody blinking an eye. I suspect nowt has changed.

P.C. wrote: »

And a trade union is a non-profit organization. The trade union representatives should not earn more than the average wage of its members.

How could Begg and O'Connor possibly know what someone on 30k is feeling? What hardship have they known? They are so out of touch with their grassroot members its not funny. If they think they are so deserving of a CEO like salary why dont they put it to a vote to their hard pressed members and see how many of them think they should keep that level of salary.

JHMEG wrote: »

The unions and others keep telling us the CSO figures are wrong.

So, why are we wasting money on the CSO... why isn't it shut down and the staff made redundant if they keep producing bad figures?

LOL!The irony! The unions shouting down a govt dept but they would be the first people crying foul tomorrow if it was to be shut down!

Badboy1977 wrote: »

Its no business of anyone here what a public servant did or didnt do today. If you want to argue about whether or not there should be a strike-fine,but whether or not there were pickets is none of your bleeding business. You are not obligated to picket. I was not paid today so piss off if you wanted me picketing my workplace all day. Its simply being petty and none of your business. The strike itself is a different matter.

I agree, you were on strike, didnt get paid so what you did is your own business but you have to admit theres a touch of Irishness about the Newry thing. The workers are crying foul about impending pay cuts and off they go in spades to spend cash while the union lemmings are standing around like eejits in the cold getting lashed on! The reality is the picketing today did nothing. The next strike will be even less meaningful now. The law of diminishing returns springs to mind:)

timmmy wrote: »

Not everyone went down. Who is getting the lifeboats here?

The union heads are the only ones in the lifeboats my friend.

Howjoe1

I think the public servant's should go a weekly two day strike. Then us, the taxpayers, would only have to pay them for a 3 day week.:D

Save the govt a fortune.

kippy

Badboy1977 wrote: »

So what if they went shopping?? What business of yours is it, if they did or not?? The strike itself might be your concern-but these people were not paid today so if they wanted to scratch their backsides at home-what concern of your petty world is it about what they did with their time? Ever read the "valley of the squinting windows?"? The fact we were not working is your concern but its all legit and what I did or anyone did is none of your small minded business!

I think you have acquired the wrong target...

brianthebard

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Money only has the value that we give it.

That has precisely what to do with the thread topic?

Blowfish

brianthebard wrote: »

You seem to be confused about what a Trade Union does. It represents its members and seeks to maintain and improve their working experience. Trade Union representatives are not required to walk into the dept of finance and provide a alternative budgetary plan.

I see. Isn't part of this preventing things like unfair dismissal? Surely they should then practice what they preach?

Getting kicked out of a union for not taking part in a strike you may not agree with sounds pretty unfair to me...

Shea O'Meara

You're in a job, you work, pay tax and some people tell you to take a pay cut? Okay guv? I don't think so.
'We pay your wages' is a pathetic argument. Do you sit in a restaurant and tell the waiter, 'This salad is too expensive, take a cut in pay so I can afford it why don't you?'
Each individual in the Public sector is no different than each individual in the private. Elected officials are a different story. I see the average wages posted on here for public sector employees, this includes all levels not the majority. Should we do the same for the private sector and include the likes of Bill Gates and Oprah? Cop on.

If you’re looking for a scapegoat, talk to your local FF TD. If you wish your job was more similar to the public sector, talk to your employer.
Everybody has the right to join a union and strike, thankfully some elements of our society give you a forum to voice either way, but keep in mind this includes public service workers, who are just that, tax paying workers providing a public service.

Stark

Shea O'Meara wrote:

Do you sit in a restaurant and tell the waiter, 'This salad is too expensive, take a cut in pay so I can afford it why don't you?'

No, we simply don't give that restaurant our business, the restaurant goes out of business and the waiter loses his job.

Shea O'Meara wrote:

I see the average wages posted on here for public sector employees, this includes all levels not the majority. Should we do the same for the private sector and include the likes of Bill Gates and Oprah? Cop on.

Average private sector wage has been posted here before. It's approx 32k p.a.

Shea O'Meara wrote:

If you’re looking for a scapegoat, talk to your local FF TD.

I will. I'll ask them to do what they've been democratically elected to do and insist we get value for money from our tax euros.

timmmy

Sizzler wrote: »

The union heads are the only ones in the lifeboats my friend.

Drumm? Fitzpatrick? Quinn? This public-private thing is nonsense. The lads at the top are doing just fine. They aren't even leaving the Titanic in a lifeboat - they're sailing off in the 'Christina O'.

Blowfish wrote: »

I see. Isn't part of this preventing things like unfair dismissal? Surely they should then practice what they preach?

Getting kicked out of a union for not taking part in a strike you may not agree with sounds pretty unfair to me...

Unfair dismissal would be in relation to employment and not to voluntary membership of a union.

BrianD

It's surprising that unions are verk keen to push the right to associate but ruthlessly make sure that there is no right to disassociate.

A friend of mine works in the civil service. He had to join a union as part of the job. Then he finds out that the union has an agreement in place tha nobody can take annual leave on strike days and if they are sick for the day it must be certified for the day (odd given that alot of the civil service view their sick days aspart of their annual leave). The unions are forcing their members to follow a particular line and denying their members an opportunity not to participate. The only option today for any body disagreeing today was to cross the picket line. Needless to say the union would make sure that that person would never prosper within the civil service.

The other thing you've got to look at is the pay of these top union heads who seem to be well rewarded. Also take a look around Dublin, most union HQ's all have a big banner outside them. I didn't realise that the unions had such a large property portfolio. Hardly very efficient?

TBH as I have no children at school age, the strike has zero effect on me. I only remembered it was on when I watched the news. Seems Newry can't wait for the next day of National Shopping, I mean, Action.

lazygal

BrianD wrote: »

It's surprising that unions are verk keen to push the right to associate but ruthlessly make sure that there is no right to disassociate.

A friend of mine works in the civil service. He had to join a union as part of the job. Then he finds out that the union has an agreement in place tha nobody can take annual leave on strike days and if they are sick for the day it must be certified for the day (odd given that alot of the civil service view their sick days aspart of their annual leave). The unions are forcing their members to follow a particular line and denying their members an opportunity not to participate. The only option today for any body disagreeing today was to cross the picket line. Needless to say the union would make sure that that person would never prosper within the civil service.

The other thing you've got to look at is the pay of these top union heads who seem to be well rewarded. Also take a look around Dublin, most union HQ's all have a big banner outside them. I didn't realise that the unions had such a large property portfolio. Hardly very efficient?

TBH as I have no children at school age, the strike has zero effect on me. I only remembered it was on when I watched the news. Seems Newry can't wait for the next day of National Shopping, I mean, Action.

Your friend should be aware that several constitutional cases have been taken against "closed shop" situations and under the Consitution one has the right to freedom of disassociation ie the right to leave a union without being denied ancillary rights and benefits.
As to the employment law to which you refer, it is standard practice in most European countries and designed to protect people in any protest in which they wish to partake. Ireland is not unique in having such laws, but one must consider the weakening of such laws in respect of the changes in legislation to faciltitate the non-union US multinationals in coming here.

I doubt many will be aware a recent Act of the Oireachtas was passed (not sure of its title, sorry) to allow US companies avail of the lower accounting standards which prevail in the US , so they can manipulate their accounts before sending profits home. If you want to look at who is manipulating the system, you'd have to look a lot further than the public service. The Government will use legislation to faciltitate any ideological which takes its fancy, even if its to the detriment of the workforce.

I have heard this described as socialism for the banks and capitalism for the workers. And surely public servants who are spending money and not being paid for today should be commended for their contribution to the economy today.

Stark

lazygal wrote:

Your friend should be aware that several constitutional cases have been taken against "closed shop" situations and under the Consitution one has the right to freedom of disassociation ie the right to leave a union without being denied ancillary rights and benefits.

It's one thing to have rights in law. The situation still remains that you can't take leave on the day of a strike and if you pass the picket, you will be reviled. There's immense pressure on non-unionised workers to join a union coming up to a strike as a result.

lazygal wrote:

I have heard this described as socialism for the banks and capitalism for the workers.

Ireland has socialism for everyone. Made Fianna Fáil very popular votes wise during the boom, but the problem is you eventually run out of money.

lazygal wrote: »

And surely public servants who are spending money and not being paid for today should be commended for their contribution to the economy today.

Commended for shopping in Newry? What next?

P.C.

Sizzler said:

Sizzler wrote: »

OK, so we have a guy who is representing thousands of union members but he doesnt have any answers, so what exactly is he talking about when hes at the negotiating table If he doesnt understand the fundamentals he shouldnt be privy to that position, simple.

You said:

brianthebard wrote: »

You seem to be confused about what a Trade Union does. It represents its members and seeks to maintain and improve their working experience. Trade Union representatives are not required to walk into the dept of finance and provide a alternative budgetary plan.

I said:

P.C. wrote: »

Yes, a Trade Union represents its members - BUT:

Trade unions also represent the unemployed - a fact which they choose to ignore most of the time.
And before you say it - I know that the unemployed are not members of the Trade Union, but they could be, if they had a job.

And -

Trade Unions are supposed to try and have as many people employed at as high a wage as possible (and before you jump on the words 'as high a wage as possible' - let me explain).
It is no good to have everyone in employment if they are only earning €1 a day, but it is just as bad to have 10 people employed, each earning € 10 000 a day. There is a balance, and the trade unions are supposed to find it.

And a trade union is a non-profit organization. The trade union representatives should not earn more than the average wage of its members.

You asked:

brianthebard wrote: »

What is this post about? It doesn't have anything to do with my post that you quoted, nor the post I was replying to. Besides which, Trade unions are not Fás. Where are you coming up with these assertions??

And my answer is:

Trade Unions need to help find a solution to the problem - this is what they undertook to do for their members when they came into exisistance.
There are many ways they could do this,
- they could use their position to put pressure on the govenment to call an election,
- they could negotiate, and help the current govenment find soltions to the current economic situation,
- they could help the current govenment introduce reforms, etc.

Trade Unions have a responsibility to their members on an individual basis - i.e. working conditions, disputes, that kind of thing, but when it comes to the 'trade' as a whole, they tend to get it wrong.
They forget about their responsibility to the unemployed. They forget their responsibility to the individual members, and look out only for themselves.
Unfortunately, when a Trade Union has no members, it will not exist anymore, but they forget this fact.

One quick example:

A factory has 50 workes (all are Trade Union members), but the owners decide to buy a new machine, which will do the job of 20 workers.
The Trade Union can negotiate a lower wage for all the workers, in exchange for the owners NOT bying the machine, or they can do nothing and end up with 30 members.
What about the 20 workers who lost thier jobs - why are they not members of the Trade Union anymore?
They did not want to loose their jobs, they did not ask to leave the Trade Union.

But:

A Trade Unions job/responsibility is to its members - it seeks to maintain and improve their working experience.

So, this Trade Union will maintain and improve its members working conditions while the owners of the factor buy more machines and retrench more workers.

But, hey, don't worry, the Trade Union is looking after its members, right to the end when it has no more members, as the factory is now run by an IT technician.

foxfordbuild

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

You're in a job, you work, pay tax and some people tell you to take a pay cut? Okay guv? I don't think so.
'We pay your wages' is a pathetic argument. Do you sit in a restaurant and tell the waiter, 'This salad is too expensive, take a cut in pay so I can afford it why don't you?'
Each individual in the Public sector is no different than each individual in the private. Elected officials are a different story. I see the average wages posted on here for public sector employees, this includes all levels not the majority. Should we do the same for the private sector and include the likes of Bill Gates and Oprah? Cop on.

If you’re looking for a scapegoat, talk to your local FF TD. If you wish your job was more similar to the public sector, talk to your employer.
Everybody has the right to join a union and strike, thankfully some elements of our society give you a forum to voice either way, but keep in mind this includes public service workers, who are just that, tax paying workers providing a public service.

your employer is in trouble and cannot afford the current staff costs so has to either reduce numbers or reduce pay, like many other businesses up and down this country

Your restaurant analogy is useless as people can choose a cheaper restaurant, not a cheaper public service

Public sector workers are different and have many protections not available to private sector workers no matter how good an employer they may have. No employer can keep workers on the same pay if income has fallen to less than expenditure, that is the difference between public and private sector workers and that is what public sector workers fail to understand


I am on a 3 day week (40% cut in pay), half our suppliers have either let staff go or forced through substantial pay cuts just to stay in business
Why should it be any different for public sector workers ?
That bottomless pit you think your pay comes from will further reduce my household income so thanks very much

Stark

Dr Kamikazi wrote: »

We don't earn as much as anyone makes out!
So, the central statistics office telling barefaced lies again? Those scallywags! Surely when they compiled data from across Europe, they must have employed morons again.

Not to mention that the ASTI and the other teaching unions must also be telling bare faced lies when they brag about the salary scales they've secured for their members: http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/. (Adding up basic pay + qualification allowances , it adds up to quite a lot of 9 months work).

Moriarty

Stark wrote: »

Average private sector wage has been posted here before. It's approx 32k p.a.

Link? I've seen similar figures quoted for the average industrial wage which, afaik, is nowhere near the complete picture as it only measures certain narrow sectors.

Shea O'Meara

foxfordbuild wrote: »

Your restaurant analogy is useless as people can choose a cheaper restaurant, not a cheaper public service

I'm saying you can't expect a worker to happily take a cut in pay.

foxfordbuild wrote: »

Public sector workers are different and have many protections not available to private sector workers no matter how good an employer they may have. No employer can keep workers on the same pay if income has fallen to less than expenditure, that is the difference between public and private sector workers and that is what public sector workers fail to understand

What you fail to understand is everybody who works and pays taxes has a right to want what's best for them and their families. Would you turn down a raise if offered? Or happily take a pay cut even though your company is as busy as ever?

foxfordbuild wrote: »

I am on a 3 day week (40% cut in pay), half our suppliers have either let staff go or forced through substantial pay cuts just to stay in business
Why should it be any different for public sector workers ?

Because their industry is relied upon by the employed/unemployed alike. Do you think the public service has gotten slack? That can't happen unless the popluation decreases dramatically.

foxfordbuild wrote: »

That bottomless pit you think your pay comes from will further reduce my household income so thanks very much

I am not a public sector worker, not everybody's opinion is based soley on their own circumstances, some of us take an overview and form an opinion based on that.

994

sean11 wrote: »

I hear there is a 5 Mile Tailback going into Newry.... Way to get Public Support!!! Have a day off to shop... Cost the Gov more money!!I dont see many picket lines outside schools either!! Laughable!!

Couldn't be bothered reading the whole thread, so maybe someone else has mentioned it: teachers are protesting at DES offices, not at schools.

Also, the government backtracking is the main issue here. The state said, we'll pay you this in 2010, this in 2011, this in 2012 ... and both sides signed on it, but then the govt. renege when they run out of money. Try treating the bank that way with a car loan, "Sure I didn't know there'd be a recession!"

starbelgrade

You may or may not agree with the strikes, but they DO have a RIGHT to strike, just the same as you have the right to protest publically. Surely these rights are a good thing?

nesf

Moriarty wrote: »

Link? I've seen similar figures quoted for the average industrial wage which, afaik, is nowhere near the complete picture as it only measures certain narrow sectors.

Specifically it measures NACE bands 15-37 as detailed here: http://www.repak.ie/files/PDFs/NaceCodesD.pdf

Bascially Manufacturing in all its forms including Recycling and other odds and ends.

Specifically:

The boundaries of manufacturing and the other sectors of the classification system can be
somewhat blurry. The manufacturing activity is engaged in the transformation of materials into
new products. The output is a new product. However, the definition of what constitutes a new
product can be somewhat subjective. As clarification, the following activities are considered
manufacturing in NACE:
- Milk pasteurizing and bottling
- Fresh fish processing (oyster shucking, fish filleting)
- Printing and related activities
- Ready-mixed concrete production
- Leather converting
- Wood preserving
- Electroplating, plating, metal heat treating and polishing
- Fabricating signs and advertising displays
- Rebuilding or remanufacturing machinery (e.g., automobile engines)
- Ship repair and renovation
- Tyre retreading.
Conversely, there are activities that are sometimes considered manufacturing, but which for
NACE are classified in another section, (i.e., not classified as manufacturing). They include:
- Logging, classified in section A (Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry)
- Benification of ores and other minerals, classified in section C (Mining)
- The construction of structures and fabricating operations performed at the site of construction
classified in section F (Construction)
- The activity of breaking of bulk and redistribution in smaller lots, including packaging,
repackaging or bottling of products, such as liquors or chemicals; the customized assembly of
computers; sorting of scrap; mixing of paints to customer order; and cutting of metals to customer
order, produce a modified version of the same product, not a new product and is classified to
section G (Wholesale and Retail Trade).

For those who are interested:

Average Weekly Earnings 1998-2008 for Industry (as defined above): http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=QIJA.asp&TableName=Industrial+Earnings&StatisticalProduct=DB_QI

Average Weekly earnings 1998-2008 for other sectors (Distribution and Business Services): http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=QEA01.asp&TableName=Average+Weekly+Earnings+for+Full+time+Employees+in+Distribution+and+Business+Services&StatisticalProduct=DB_QE

Average Weekly earnings 1998-2008 for Financial Institutions: http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=BICAC3.asp&TableName=Average+Weekly+Earnings+for+All+Employees+in+Banking+Insurance+and+Building+Societies&StatisticalProduct=DB_BI

Average Weekly earnings 1998-2008 for Public Servants: http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=PSA01.asp&TableName=Public+Sector+Average+Weekly+Earnings&StatisticalProduct=DB_PS

Dannyboy83

994 wrote: »

Also, the government backtracking is the main issue here. The state said, we'll pay you this in 2010, this in 2011, this in 2012 ... and both sides signed on it, but then the govt. renege when they run out of money. Try treating the bank that way with a car loan, "Sure I didn't know there'd be a recession!"

Unfortunately, the same applies to public or private.
Nor do the government take this into account when calculating means/JA.
Means are calculated on income.

lmimmfn

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I'm saying you can't expect a worker to happily take a cut in pay.

what???????????????? relative to losing your job a worker in the private sector will easily forefit a % of wages/salary to sustain work.

It doesnt even take that in the private sector, keeping a company competitive is number 1 otherwise there is no company and therefore no job. We dont all have the luxury of complaining when the good times end and trying to keep everything we had, and taking a day off to moan about it :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Specifically it measures NACE bands 15-37 as detailed here: http://www.repak.ie/files/PDFs/NaceCodesD.pdf

Bascially Manufacturing in all its forms including Recycling and other odds and ends.

Specifically:



For those who are interested:

Average Weekly Earnings 1998-2008 for Industry (as defined above): http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=QIJA.asp&TableName=Industrial+Earnings&StatisticalProduct=DB_QI

Average Weekly earnings 1998-2008 for other sectors (Distribution and Business Services): http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=QEA01.asp&TableName=Average+Weekly+Earnings+for+Full+time+Employees+in+Distribution+and+Business+Services&StatisticalProduct=DB_QE

Average Weekly earnings 1998-2008 for Financial Institutions: http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=BICAC3.asp&TableName=Average+Weekly+Earnings+for+All+Employees+in+Banking+Insurance+and+Building+Societies&StatisticalProduct=DB_BI

Average Weekly earnings 1998-2008 for Public Servants: http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=PSA01.asp&TableName=Public+Sector+Average+Weekly+Earnings&StatisticalProduct=DB_PS

Average Weekly earnings 1998-2008 for other sectors - that's a lovely little dataset:

Sector|1999|2000|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008
Distribution and business services (50-64, 70-74)|466.2|505.01|545.41|563.58|589.45|619.41|644.7|682.03|709.2|728.61
Motor trades (50)|391.32|430.5|467.68|469.86|502.15|541.04|572.18|601.54|638.4|636.75
Wholesale trade (51)|489.61|527.2|558|583.73|598.76|626.38|665.48|703.26|711.65|737.67
Retail trade (52)|427.89|487.06|541.78|585.88|620.84|639.01|660.43|705.05|742.24|770.2
Business services (55-64, 70-74)|480.55|513.52|551.46|561.43|585.53|619.01|642.86|678.99|705.34|723.62
Hotels and restaurants (55)|303.81|322.02|339.26|347.06|367.45|395.77|418.67|431.16|446.34|465.23
Land transport (60)|464.44|502.83|553.92|568.07|591.41|624.16|651.54|680.67|711.19|742.88
Other business activities (74)|491.64|534.85|575.78|595.2|630.8|656.89|672.97|704.63|726.52|726.6
Post and telecommunications (64)|646.53|672.06|722.33|736.16|744.12|781.5|799.88|..|..|..
Real estate, renting of machinery and equipment|451.56|487.66|538.87|594.69|640.67|709.98|761.94|830.39|856|863.65
Computing activities, research and development |563.61|613.93|642.63|626.94|645.84|676.92|708.09|720.72|767.15|824.23
Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles, personal and household goods (50-52)|440.46|489.59|534.42|567.5|596.58|620.12|647.9|687.37|716.04|737.32
Water and air transport, supporting transport and travel agent activities (61-63)|508.85|535.65|591.07|593.42|655.23|701.44|736.62|..|..|.


If you look at the IT sector and the estate agents you can see the end of the dotcom bubble and the start and end of the property bubble. Helps if you graph all sectors, and you'll see the strong inflection for IT in 2001, while estate agents' rates start rising strongly above the general trend shortly afterwards.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Stark wrote: »

Won't affect me either. Until my employer pulls out of the country that is. We're already losing foreign investment as companies are put off by our high marginal tax rate.

I don't think Michael Dell was put off by our "high" marginal tax rate. Actually I'm quite sure he doesn't give a flying fnck.

Anyway, since the public sector are the alleged high earners in the country why are they supporting higher taxes for high earners, and if the private sector is so poorly paid why are they against higher taxes on those public servants?

Higher taxes hit public servants more, allegedly. Tax them to hell.

maggy_thatcher

dresden8 wrote: »

Anyway, since the public sector are the alleged high earners in the country why are they supporting higher taxes for high earners, and if the private sector is so poorly paid why are they against higher taxes on those public servants?

Higher taxes hit public servants more, allegedly. Tax them to hell.

You aren't looking at the big picture. If you increase the marginal rate, then you hit the employers of the private sector workers. These employers are generally more capable to relocate to a country with better taxes, taking the entire Irish presence with it...so you end up with higher unemployment, less corporation tax income, etc. Is that what you want?

bobbyjoe

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

You aren't looking at the big picture. If you increase the marginal rate, then you hit the employers of the private sector workers. These employers are generally more capable to relocate to a country with better taxes, taking the entire Irish presence with it...so you end up with higher unemployment, less corporation tax income, etc. Is that what you want?

Their going to relocate their business if their tax goes up a few percent?
Where they going to go?

Does that mean employers can't be taxed?

maggy_thatcher

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Their going to relocate their business if their tax goes up a few percent?
Where they going to go?

Does that mean employers can't be taxed?

No, it means you can't just jump the rate up to 60% as has been discussed...or say "tax them all to hell." Remember these are the guys currently paying the significant bulk of our current tax burden as it is, while many others are getting away scott-free.

A balance needs to be found between increasing taxes on high-earners, and spreading the tax burden amongst those who currently paying no tax at all.

Sizzler

Let them strike again, the €30m thats saved for everyday they go out should be given to the flood victims across the country, people who will only be too grateful.

Clanrickard

dresden8 wrote: »

I don't think Michael Dell was put off by our "high" marginal tax rate. Actually I'm quite sure he doesn't give a flying fnck.

Anyway, since the public sector are the alleged high earners in the country why are they supporting higher taxes for high earners, and if the private sector is so poorly paid why are they against higher taxes on those public servants?

Higher taxes hit public servants more, allegedly. Tax them to hell.

The Public Sector don't pay tax and I am tried of this waffle being repeated. It is a book keeping trick. A Public Sector Worker gets for the sake of argument 100 euro gross. Lets say she is taxed at 20%. She gets net 80 euro. She hasn't paid tax as such. The entire amount has come from the private sector.

Also the Unions want high taxes on high earners most of whom are in the private sector. I would suggest the Public Sector are on high middle incomes rather than high incomes. In the private sector there are some people at the top, some in the middle and a good lot at the bottom.

meditraitor

Mr Goon wrote: »

Teachers are usually some of the most intelligent people in most countries, so I'm sure a lot could turn their hand to banking at any level you asked them to.
.

Good lord, no wonder the ps think they should not take a pay cut, the arrogance

bobbyjoe

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

No, it means you can't just jump the rate up to 60% as has been discussed...or say "tax them all to hell." Remember these are the guys currently paying the significant bulk of our current tax burden as it is, while many others are getting away scott-free.

A balance needs to be found between increasing taxes on high-earners, and spreading the tax burden amongst those who currently paying no tax at all.

Sounds reasonable. So far we've seen those hit are services, the old, the sick and students. Now they are after PS workers. If some others were also getting hit maybe there would be more willingness to "share the pain".