What recession?

strandroad

666irishguy wrote: »

They are the ones that want to tend the aged and ill, otherwise they are in the wrong line of work. Like a previous poster said, their pay is hardly a pittance and if they only stayed in Ireland for a few years and then left it would not be so bad, but to leave straight away without contributing anything back to the system that trained and educated them is more than a bit thankless. The big difference in training medical staff as opposed to other professions is the fact that they are desperately needed in this country and all around the world. At this rate we would be better off not bothering to train anybody in the field of medicine and use the money to hire and train staff abroad then bring them here. There would be plenty of men and women in less fortunate countries who would be glad to take the so called pittance.

This is probably what is going to happen. They extended the scheme to previous years' graduates, then they may open it to everyone or foreign candidates. Filipino or Polish nurses will be accepted while Irish graduates will enjoy their UK or Australian jobs... until they want to come home for some reason and find these jobs filled.

RobbieTheRobber

Going Forward wrote: »

€423 p/w is not a pittance.
If they dont want to tend the ill and aged they should have pursued a different career path.

When they began pursuing this career the terms and conditions under which they could reasonably be expected to be employed under were very different to what they can expect now.

strandroad

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

When they began pursuing this career the terms and conditions under which they could reasonably be expected to be employed under were very different to what they can expect now.

As they are for everyone...

cosbloodymick

This is what is called the free market. If people (nurses or any other profession) don't feel they are getting paid what they feel they are worth, then they won't work for it and will seek opportunities elsewhere.
I for one am glad people are starting to stand up for themselves and seek reasonable remuneration for their work. The continuous attack on wages in both public and private sectors in this country is not benefitting workers here and is only enriching the 1 percenters.

craggle

kceire wrote: »

• lower car costs
• lower motor tax
• low insurance premiums
• free NHS
• lower socialising costs
• lower food costs
• lower cost to fly to other countries from the UK
• day to day things : lower life insurance, lower health insurance, lower tv packs, lower house prices (subjective) which lead to lower mortgages.

Show me one thing thats cheaper in Eire and theres another thats cheaper in the UK.

I moved back here from England last year and my car insurance is a quarter of the price it was in England. My electric bill for two months here is less than it was for one month in England. I pay less rent for a three bedroom house than I did for a one bedroom flat in England. And my council tax in England every month was £150 and all I got for that was a free communal bin collection. National insurance in England is far higher than PRSI which is how everyone has free healthcare. So I don't think I would agree that everything is cheaper in the UK

NIMAN

I used to live in NI, and my car insurance in RoI is lower than it would be in the North, guaranteed.

Going Forward

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

When they began pursuing this career the terms and conditions under which they could reasonably be expected to be employed under were very different to what they can expect now.

You must be aware that there is a recession in this country, we're in a bailout program and that terms and conditions (and therefore expectations) have changed for virtually all those in employment, public and private sector?

Let them use your line in an interview with some alternative employer and see how it would go down!

darkhorse

creedp wrote: »

But sure we never hear the end about the fact that Irish nurses are the best paid in the world.

Tell me, who is the we that you are talking about. I have never heard that Irish nurses are the best paid in the world. As a matter of fact, take these two countries below as a comparison that are looking for nurses at this moment in time, and that have a fairly good standard of living.







Registered Nurse Salary - Living in Canada

Registered Nurse (RN) Salary, Average Salaries | PayScale Australia



Now, I could have give you a link to the salary of Irish nurses, but I think it more fitting if I post this particular link, just to show you how our second in command of the country, holds our graduates(with a few years study in nursing at college)in such high esteem, and trying to defend the govts latest decision.




<h3 class="r">Gilmore defends 'cheap labour' nursing salaries

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

darkhorse

darkhorse wrote: »

You find yourself working alongside a person that maybe would not have anywhere near the qualifications that you might have, and you have to work for 20% less than that person. Would you be bothered, bearing in mind, if you went abroad, you would be paid what you are worth.

creedp wrote: »

Why do you think that recently qualified nurses would be much better qualified than fully trained and experienced nurses?

Would you mind reading my post fully, before you post your reply.

road_high

Canada and Australia did not have to be bailed out via the IMF nor are they still running an €8 billion deficit.
Comparing public sector salaries (i.e. what the state can afford) here and there is like comparing apples and oranges to me.

areyawell

People going on about retraining and things like that are talking complete and utter horse crap. There's nearly 450,000 unemployed in Ireland when including emigration. Not everyone has the same IQ and some people mightn't have the intelligence to re-train in an area that is now employable . That's Life.
This talk of retraining is not available for everyone. There is 30 people applying for every job here now in Ireland. I'm all for people retraining to up their job prospects but the jobs are simply not their.

Godge

mfitzy wrote: »

Canada and Australia did not have to be bailed out via the IMF nor are they still running an €8 billion deficit.
Comparing public sector salaries (i.e. what the state can afford) here and there is like comparing apples and oranges to me.

yes and no, it is not necessarily apples and oranges.

what if a comparison with Canada and Australia found that our social welfare rates were about the same, out public service pay rates were about the same but our taxations was much lower and this was the reason for our deficit?

I have looked at these international figures and come to the conclusion that it is in the area of social welfare that we are most out of line. One parent family rate lasting too long, child benefit too high and unemployment benefit and assistance too high are our majot problems. The next one is the level of benefits available to pensioners but cutting things like medical cards, free travel and houshold benefits would bring us in line where they are concerned.

On public service pay, we have a situation where some are overpaid still - mostly those in the 40-80k range. Most of the new entrants are underpaid at the rates they get (apart from the clerical) and funnily enough many of those in the 80-120k range are underpaid too. Above 170k there are people who are overpaid.

darkhorse

Going Forward wrote: »

€423 p/w is not a pittance.

Well, take out income tax, universal social charge(dont know why they call it a charge, cause its just another tax), and prsi for starters, or do you think they get cash in hand.

jased10s

Godge wrote: »

yes and no, it is not necessarily apples and oranges.

what if a comparison with Canada and Australia found that our social welfare rates were about the same, out public service pay rates were about the same but our taxations was much lower and this was the reason for our deficit?

I have looked at these international figures and come to the conclusion that it is in the area of social welfare that we are most out of line. One parent family rate lasting too long, child benefit too high and unemployment benefit and assistance too high are our majot problems. The next one is the level of benefits available to pensioners but cutting things like medical cards, free travel and houshold benefits would bring us in line where they are concerned.

On public service pay, we have a situation where some are overpaid still - mostly those in the 40-80k range. Most of the new entrants are underpaid at the rates they get (apart from the clerical) and funnily enough many of those in the 80-120k range are underpaid too. Above 170k there are people who are overpaid.

I wouldent agree much with you godge , But they are solid facts you speak.

Good loser

KyussBishop wrote: »

This is a pretty lazy caricature of the policies I put forward, which implicitly labels all unemployed people as lazy scroungers, which is pretty ignorant.

If you think people on welfare are simply lazy like that, then modify my policies by ending unemployment altogether; the lazy scroungers would all have to work in order to earn their money then (obviously not a caricature of them I hold), so naturally you'd be in favour of that then?

Or perhaps, you don't actually care about that at all, or even the wider policy, and are just using that caricature as an offhand excuse to sneer at the policies put forward, and are incapable of putting together an actually substantive argument, that isn't aimed at denigrating/sneering.

Cannot understand how you think my post considers unemployed people to be lazy scroungers.

There are 1,000 nursing posts and nurses won't take them (at the urging of Doran of INMO) because the pay isn't enough!! This, in the HSE which is to cut costs by €750 m in 2013!!!

If the garbage economics involved in this is scaled up to your 'GRAND SCHEME' of the State giving jobs to 100,000/200,000 where does this leave your scheme? I suggest - where it belongs - in the garbage can.

darkhorse

mfitzy wrote: »

Canada and Australia did not have to be bailed out via the IMF nor are they still running an €8 billion deficit.

So, do you think that is a good enough reason why our graduates should put their life on hold for another few years. I mean, you know as well as I do that if this economy dos'ent mend, that the jobs that the govt want graduates to take for 20% less than the people doing the same job at the moment, then maybe they will want them to do it for 50% less in the next few years.

road_high

darkhorse wrote: »

So, do you think that is a good enough reason why our graduates should put their life on hold for another few years. I mean, you know as well as I do that if this economy dos'ent mend, that the jobs that the govt want graduates to take for 20% less than the people doing the same job at the moment, then maybe they will want them to do it for 50% less in the next few years.

But the money isn't there. What do you think the govt should do, print money or something. Times have changed and people's lives and expectations will have to adjust accordingly.
I lost my own job a few years back in the PS (contract) and had to reinvent myself and go do something else. Life isn't always fair and no one owed me or anyone else a living.

tenton

Godge wrote: »

On public service pay, we have a situation where some are overpaid still - mostly those in the 40-80k range.

The fact is nearly all of our public servants are overpaid compared both with other european countries and compared with the private sector, like for like. Pat Kenny made that very point recently and had the figures to boot. Most public servant pay need to be reduced by about 20%, given the state of the economy.

darkhorse

mfitzy wrote: »

But the money isn't there.

Except fof all the people in D.E., S.E., highly paid staff on 29 councils(753), bankers in AIB, Anglo, NAMA, NAMA Delevopers, Civil Servants, Quango's, etc etc.

KyussBishop

Good loser wrote: »

Cannot understand how you think my post considers unemployed people to be lazy scroungers.

There are 1,000 nursing posts and nurses won't take them (at the urging of Doran of INMO) because the pay isn't enough!! This, in the HSE which is to cut costs by €750 m in 2013!!!

If the garbage economics involved in this is scaled up to your 'GRAND SCHEME' of the State giving jobs to 100,000/200,000 where does this leave your scheme? I suggest - where it belongs - in the garbage can.

Even in this post, you're implying that people will be too lazy to take on jobs government makes available; out of one side of your mouth you protest that you did not say this, while in the same breath making exactly the same implication.

What a massively ignorant point of view that is; you have no interest in providing an actual argument against the policies I put forward, you're only lame attempt at countering it is by saying people won't take the jobs!


If you aren't implying that unemployed people are lazy, then what do you say will make them take a job? (public or private) What exact problem needs to be overcome to get them taking jobs?

If you can't answer either of those questions (and don't have even the very minor creativity needed, to see if your answers can apply equally to the job guarantee program), then you make plain your only interest here is bashing the policies I put forward, without giving a toss if your arguments actually have any validity at all.

KyussBishop

mfitzy wrote: »

But the money isn't there. What do you think the govt should do, print money or something. Times have changed and people's lives and expectations will have to adjust accordingly.
I lost my own job a few years back in the PS (contract) and had to reinvent myself and go do something else. Life isn't always fair and no one owed me or anyone else a living.

Yes, that's exactly what they should do, with the help of the ECB (doesn't even have to lead to an increase in debt); that's what half this thread has been about, there is no economic impediment to this (there are ample ways to spend money, while staying within inflation targets), only political obstacles.

Going Forward

darkhorse wrote: »

So, do you think that is a good enough reason why our graduates should put their life on hold for another few years. I mean, you know as well as I do that if this economy dos'ent mend, that the jobs that the govt want graduates to take for 20% less than the people doing the same job at the moment, then maybe they will want them to do it for 50% less in the next few years.

What would you like then, the taxpayers to prop them up for another few years whilst they take some "time out" to consider their options?

A bird in the hand..............

OMD

kceire wrote: »

• lower car costs
• lower motor tax
• low insurance premiums
• free NHS
• lower socialising costs
• lower food costs
• lower cost to fly to other countries from the UK
• day to day things : lower life insurance, lower health insurance, lower tv packs, lower house prices (subjective) which lead to lower mortgages.

Show me one thing thats cheaper in Eire and theres another thats cheaper in the UK.

I meant back up your point with some proof that the UK is substantially cheaper than Ireland. All you have offered is your opinion of what you believe is cheaper (mostly wrong) in UK.

OMD

Godge wrote: »

yes and no, it is not necessarily apples and oranges.

what if a comparison with Canada and Australia found that our social welfare rates were about the same, out public service pay rates were about the same but our taxations was much lower and this was the reason for our deficit?

I have looked at these international figures and come to the conclusion that it is in the area of social welfare that we are most out of line. One parent family rate lasting too long, child benefit too high and unemployment benefit and assistance too high are our majot problems. The next one is the level of benefits available to pensioners but cutting things like medical cards, free travel and houshold benefits would bring us in line where they are concerned.

On public service pay, we have a situation where some are overpaid still - mostly those in the 40-80k range. Most of the new entrants are underpaid at the rates they get (apart from the clerical) and funnily enough many of those in the 80-120k range are underpaid too. Above 170k there are people who are overpaid.

Surely the correct pay to pay is the lowest amount with which you can still ensure you will get people of sufficient ability to fill the posts.

The reason deficit is lower in Australia is that Australia is not in recession. We are.

road_high

OMD wrote: »

Surely the correct pay to pay is the lowest amount with which you can still ensure you will get people of sufficient ability to fill the posts.

Not when a trade union appears to be dictating to govt what to pay and at the same time "discouraging" young grads from applying ala Nursing at the moment

The reason deficit is lower in Australia is that Australia is not in recession. We are.

Exactly which means we can afford to pay FAR less than those economies for public services so it's a red herring to start comparing wages between the two.

FreudianSlippers

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

ARRRGGGHHH!!! I knew this would descend into a f**k the students thread eventually. No, we don't owe a government that turn their back on us anything! There are not 1,000 nursing jobs in Ireland, lest it be forgotten the public sector has a BAN ON EMPLOYING NEW STAFF!! Student nurses are having to fight to get money for a year of work they do in final year (they still have to pay fees during that year even though they are rarely in college) and then when they do graduate the government turns it's back and they are forced to go to the UK! Where is the fairness in that? We (students) weren't the one who destroyed this country, causing massive deb and unemployment. Nor was it the middle class. It was the Government, and financial people, and head bankers. Not the ordinary person. Lets stop targeting each other with anger and attack them instead!

So what you're saying is that the gov didn't just offer 1000 new nursing jobs?

mollymosfet

green123 wrote: »

82 % of people can afford to pay for sky or upc for television subscriptions.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/noonan-if-they-can-pay-for-sky-tv-they-can-pay-my-property-tax-3334471.html

noonan is right.

That's ridiculous. You're basically saying that if people can afford any amenities at all, they should be hit harder. Meaning they might be left with none. While the people can't be touched further because ah sure they already pay the brunt of it and they might leave if we tax them further!

I have no respect for anyone that thinks like this.

darkhorse

mfitzy wrote: »

But the money isn't there.
Life isn't always fair and no one owed me or anyone else a living.

Tell that to the Banksters and Bondholders.

darkhorse

Good loser wrote: »

There are 1,000 nursing posts and nurses won't take them (at the urging of Doran of INMO) because the pay isn't enough!! This, in the HSE which is to cut costs by €750 m in 2013!!!

Ya reckon minister reilly and the rest of the team will put on the green jersey or is it just the workers that should take the responsability, after all, the amount that they want these new nurses to work for would be pocket change to the elite.

darkhorse

Going Forward wrote: »

What would you like then, the taxpayers to prop them up for another few years whilst they take some "time out" to consider their options.

No, and I'm sure neither would they, thats why if they cant obtain a satisfactory paid job at home, well, they'll have to go to where they can.

darkhorse

darkhorse wrote: »

No, and I'm sure neither would they, thats why if they cant obtain a satisfactory paid job at home, well, they'll have to go to where they can.

Anyway, I think all our problems will be over:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CmUiUXMEyRw

areyawell

1000 nursing posts of them getting badly underpaid and working crazy hours.

Sure theres only 449,000 unemployed then if they took the roles:rolleyes:

starlit

Well there is obviously a recession if some places don't allow people on social welfare to rent accommodation? Can they really afford it though people on SW?

Too right the Nurses should be able to stand up for themselves and to boycott this new internship scheme for them its just crazy for the work they do. They should be paid if they aren't badly paid as it is. Its going the same way for teachers I am afraid.

djpbarry

kceire wrote: »

Our closest neighbour yes, but the two countries are miles apart in regards to salaries/purchasing power/cost of living etc etc etc

Yeah, sure we all live on air and water over here.

kceire wrote: »

free NHS

The NHS is not “free”. It’s paid for with substantial national insurance contributions.

kceire wrote: »

lower socialising costs

That depends on what you define as “socialising”. For example, cinema tickets are generally more expensive here than in Ireland.

kceire wrote: »

lower food costs

Marginally lower.

kceire wrote: »

lower cost to fly to other countries from the UK

Clutching at straws now.

kceire wrote: »

day to day things : lower life insurance, lower health insurance...

I don’t know about health insurance, but my contents insurance is pretty similar here to what it was in Dublin.

kceire wrote: »

...lower house prices (subjective) which lead to lower mortgages.

My rent here is roughly double what it was in Dublin.

kceire wrote: »

Show me one thing thats cheaper in Eire and theres another thats cheaper in the UK.

Public transport is substantially cheaper in Dublin than it is here. But picking individual items and stating that x is cheaper in the UK/Ireland doesn’t prove anything. Generally speaking, net salaries are substantially lower in the UK than they are in Ireland and I’m not at all convinced that this difference is accounted for by a lower cost of living.

djpbarry

cosbloodymick wrote: »

I for one am glad people are starting to stand up for themselves and seek reasonable remuneration for their work.

Salaries in Ireland are unreasonable?

Going Forward wrote: »

You must be aware that there is a recession in this country...

No there isn’t:

http://www.cso.ie/indicators/default.aspx?id=1

darkhorse wrote: »

I have never heard that Irish nurses are the best paid in the world.

Nurses in Ireland are very well paid relative to other OECD countries:
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_STAT#

areyawell wrote: »

There's nearly 450,000 une2mployed in Ireland when including emigration.

Why are you classifying emigrants as unemployed? That's ridiculous.

areyawell wrote: »

Not everyone has the same IQ and some people mightn't have the intelligence to re-train in an area that is now employable .

People in Ireland are too thick to be re-trained? Are you serious?

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, take out income tax, universal social charge(dont know why they call it a charge, cause its just another tax), and prsi for starters, or do you think they get cash in hand.

They’ll come out with €368 after tax – still not a “pittance”.

avalon68

doovdela wrote: »

Well there is obviously a recession if some places don't allow people on social welfare to rent accommodation? Can they really afford it though people on SW?

Too right the Nurses should be able to stand up for themselves and to boycott this new internship scheme for them its just crazy for the work they do. They should be paid if they aren't badly paid as it is. Its going the same way for teachers I am afraid.

Im sure there will be plenty of nurses glad to take up those positions. Those who dont want to , dont have to....simples. As to the accommodation - Id imagine not wanting to take people on welfare is to do with the rent allowance possibly - If it goes directly to the landlord then they would have to be registered and above board....therefore paying tax? Not sure , but seems that might be the reason. Perhaps someone can clarify that?

femur61

kceire wrote: »

Which is about €25,200 and with the added benefit of lower cost of living, free medical care (NHS), council tax that includes water and waste services, lower insurance premiums, lower motor tax, low car motoring costs etc etc etc

O

Some parts of the UK may have a lower cost of living but have you ever tried to live in London - so expensive.

starlit

avalon68 wrote: »

Im sure there will be plenty of nurses glad to take up those positions. Those who dont want to , dont have to....simples. As to the accommodation - Id imagine not wanting to take people on welfare is to do with the rent allowance possibly - If it goes directly to the landlord then they would have to be registered and above board....therefore paying tax? Not sure , but seems that might be the reason. Perhaps someone can clarify that?

Then why are the unions encouraging them not to take up these internships in the HSE then? Even those in the profession aren't encouraging it either?

avalon68

doovdela wrote: »

Then why are the unions encouraging them not to take up these internships in the HSE then? Even those in the profession aren't encouraging it either?

Because they are trying to protect their higher wages. Notice how you dont see them offering to meet in the middle - thus bringing up the new entrants wage and bringing down existing wages so that everyone is paid the same. If the money isnt there to pay them then wages need to decrease. Id rather have more nurses earning less (probably a lower workload for them too!) than less nurses earning more. We also need to stop the flood of newly trained nurses etc out of the country - we pay a lot to train them, but in a few years when existing nurses retire there will be a huge skills vacuum as nurses will have had to leave to find work abroad.

Gumbo

femur61 wrote: »

Some parts of the UK may have a lower cost of living but have you ever tried to live in London - so expensive.

Totally agree, same as living in Dublin is much more expensive than living in some remote part of Ireland too.

Good loser

doovdela wrote: »

Then why are the unions encouraging them not to take up these internships in the HSE then? Even those in the profession aren't encouraging it either?

Now the unions have a choice 1,000 jobs at €20k or 800 jobs at €24 k.

They opt for the money! As ever.

Good loser

KyussBishop wrote: »

Even in this post, you're implying that people will be too lazy to take on jobs government makes available; out of one side of your mouth you protest that you did not say this, while in the same breath making exactly the same implication.

What a massively ignorant point of view that is; you have no interest in providing an actual argument against the policies I put forward, you're only lame attempt at countering it is by saying people won't take the jobs!


If you aren't implying that unemployed people are lazy, then what do you say will make them take a job? (public or private) What exact problem needs to be overcome to get them taking jobs?

If you can't answer either of those questions (and don't have even the very minor creativity needed, to see if your answers can apply equally to the job guarantee program), then you make plain your only interest here is bashing the policies I put forward, without giving a toss if your arguments actually have any validity at all.

You've lost the run of yourself there Kyuss. I always considered your meandering posts obscurantist backwaters. I wasn't wrong.

You refer again to my characterising nurses (and your 150,000 quasi public servants) who won't take the recent job offers as 'lazy scroungers'. They may or may not be such; I offer no opinion. What I do say is that if 1,000 nurses are offered a job at €22,000 per annum - the same as trainee accountants, who have much higher entry standards - and do not take it you are in a straightforward argument about money/the price of labour. Nothing else.

In one way this is not unusual as a job contract must have a price element attached. Except for your GRAND SCHEME of thousands and thousands of jobs with no price or contract complications. As George Hook says 'Back up the (garbage) truck'.

Going Forward

doovdela wrote: »

Then why are the unions encouraging them not to take up these internships in the HSE then? Even those in the profession aren't encouraging it either?

A union pressurising in the main, young people who dont have employment to remain that way.

I sincerely hope that those who do take up the posts are treated with due respect and not in any way shunned or treated as scabs by their new co workers as a result of the union propaganda.

KyussBishop

Good loser wrote: »

You've lost the run of yourself there Kyuss. I always considered your meandering posts obscurantist backwaters. I wasn't wrong.

You refer again to my characterising nurses (and your 150,000 quasi public servants) who won't take the recent job offers as 'lazy scroungers'. They may or may not be such; I offer no opinion. What I do say is that if 1,000 nurses are offered a job at €22,000 per annum - the same as trainee accountants, who have much higher entry standards - and do not take it you are in a straightforward argument about money/the price of labour. Nothing else.

In one way this is not unusual as a job contract must have a price element attached. Except for your GRAND SCHEME of thousands and thousands of jobs with no price or contract complications. As George Hook says 'Back up the (garbage) truck'.

Yes except you're trying to argue against the jobs program I laid out by saying people won't take the jobs, that even when kicked off the dole for refusing job offers (this part in particular you like to keep skipping over, as your entire argument depends on the dole), they won't take up the jobs; and now you're backpedaling trying to pretend you were making a completely different argument.

It's a totally stupid line of argument, that people would rather not work and lose their dole, being left with no income, rather than taking a job in the program, that you're now trying to fluff up with rhetoric/condescension, and by selectively ignoring my arguments wherever necessary, in order to clutch on to your own.

It's guaranteed at this stage, your responses will contain no kind of actual arguments addressing the points I make; particularly the point that people will be kicked off the dole and left with no money, meaning you are effectively arguing they will go without any earnings rather than take a job.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes except you're trying to argue against the jobs program I laid out by saying people won't take the jobs...

A lot of them won’t for the simple reason that they won’t be qualified. Not going to be much use for plasterers on the DART interconnector, for example.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

A lot of them won’t for the simple reason that they won’t be qualified. Not going to be much use for plasterers on the DART interconnector, for example.

I'm sure it's not that hard for a plasterer to use a shovel or mix cement on any other project that's part of the overall program, or to retrain into any other available specialized roles.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm sure it's not that hard for a plasterer to use a shovel or mix cement on any other project that's part of the overall program, or to retrain into any other available specialized roles.

Why are you so sure? Do you have experience building underground rail lines?

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

Why are you so sure? Do you have experience building underground rail lines?

Do you? What exact training do the workers need to do it? Why can't this training be provided to workers in reasonable time?

All that's assuming a lack of availability of the required specialist workers across the EU (since it would be part of an EU-wide project), which again it would be good if you could show.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

Do you?

Nope. But you're the one trying to convince us of your masterplan to get the unemployed in Ireland working again. So what makes you think that all these people can be trained to build (for example) an underground rail line in a reasonable period of time?

And how is all this going to work in practice anyway? The government puts a project out to tender with the attached conditions that unemployed workers must be employed on the project and any necessary training is to be provided?

flutered

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm sure it's not that hard for a plasterer to use a shovel or mix cement on any other project that's part of the overall program, or to retrain into any other available specialized roles.

asking a plasterer to drive a shovel is akin to asking a nurse to work for 21k.