Public sector pay increase

Dan_Solo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Unions will have a problem with these reforms yes, but that is why I suport the whole scale de-unionization of the public sector.

Do you own a mine or something?
What is "support" anyway? Is there an actual campaign or what? Don't you really mean "propose"?

evolving_doors

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All it would take is one strong willed government to refuse to co-operate with them.

Public sector people vote too you know!

Jawgap

JillyQ wrote: »

I don't think he said anything about stopping people joining a union, the government as a employer has the right not to recognise it.

'The government' is not an employer of public or civil servants. Myriad departments of government, agencies, authorities, executives, councils etc are the employers - people need to get away from the idea that either public and civil servants, and their employers are some kind of monolithic entities.

Roger Hassenforder

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Unions will have a problem with these reforms yes, but that is why I suport the whole scale de-unionization of the public sector.

Do you "support" the whole scale "de-unionization" of the private sector too?

blackcard

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Do you "support" the whole scale "de-unionization" of the private sector too?

Jack O'Connor et al are private sector workers

Dan_Solo

blackcard wrote: »

Jack O'Connor et al are private sector workers

Is there a second sentence missing here... so?

Roger Hassenforder

blackcard wrote: »

Jack O'Connor et al are private sector workers

and?

Iwasfrozen

Gebgbegb wrote: »

What's with all the teacher hate?

I don't hate teachers they do a very valuable job but with a few changes to the system we could get more for less.

Iwasfrozen

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Do you "support" the whole scale "de-unionization" of the private sector too?

Yes, absolutely.

Jawgap

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, absolutely.

Article 40.6.1(iii) of the Constitution? How do you plan to sneak the referendum through?

An employer can refuse to recognise a union, but that won't mean unions will disappear.

byhookorbycrook

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't hate teachers they do a very valuable job but with a few changes to the system we could get more for less.

Please do elaborate.

evolving_doors

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't hate teachers they do a very valuable job but with a few changes to the system we could get more for less.

more ? Ive already given more with CP1,HR,FEMPI but yer still not happy...
I get the sense theres a bit of unresolved grievances and it aint about pay or 3months holidays.

stefanovich

I really don't think we need to focus on teachers who for the most part do a fantastic job for less pay than they deserve. What bothers me about the public sector are the back room bureaucrats and their rampant inefficiency.

Iwasfrozen

Jawgap wrote: »

Article 40.6.1(iii) of the Constitution? How do you plan to sneak the referendum through?

An employer can refuse to recognise a union, but that won't mean unions will disappear.

As you've said an employer can refuse to recognize unions.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As you've said an employer can refuse to recognize unions.

So you want a situation where workers don't have someone to fight for them and just shut up and take poor treatment, unfair changes to their employment conditions, wages not being increased, inconsistancy in wages amoung people doing similar jobs etc etc etc etc etc!

Iwasfrozen

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

So you want a situation where workers don't have someone to fight for them and just shut up and take poor treatment, unfair changes to their employment conditions, wages not being increased, inconsistancy in wages amoung people doing similar jobs etc etc etc etc etc!

I want a situation where employers, in this case the govt, have the freedom to make necessary and beneficial changes without being subject to blackmail by unions.

purplecow1977

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I want a situation where employers, in this case the govt, have the freedom to make necessary and beneficial changes without being subject to blackmail by unions.

Ahhh so you want employees like this then

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01514/p_doormat_i-am-not_1514745i.jpg

Roger Hassenforder

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I want a situation where employers in this case the govt, have the freedom power to make necessary and beneficial changes without being subject to blackmail by unions.

fyp.
you sure you dont own a salt mine?

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I want a situation where employers, in this case the govt, have the freedom to make necessary and beneficial changes without being subject to blackmail by unions.

Thankfully we have unions to prevent "necessary" changes as they would be anything but beneficial.

Dan_Solo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I want a situation where employers, in this case the govt, have the freedom to make necessary and beneficial changes without being subject to blackmail by unions.

And who decides if they are "necessary and beneficial" or not? The employers I suppose?
No... no problems with that proposal.

JillyQ

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And who decides if they are "necessary and beneficial" or not? The employers I suppose?
No... no problems with that proposal.

Yes if the employers own the company and have taken all the risks associated with setting it up

Jawgap

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I want a situation where employers, in this case the govt, have the freedom to make necessary and beneficial changes without being subject to blackmail by unions.

It's not just unions who engage in 'blackmail'

Thousands protest planned closure of Navan hospital A&E

Hundreds attend Stepaside protest against Garda station closure

Farmers protest as Teagasc office closes doors

.......or maybe all those protesters are PS workers?

Jawgap

JillyQ wrote: »

Yes if the employers own the company and have taken all the risks associated with setting it up

......but they haven't taken all the risks - they'll have gotten tax breaks, benefitted from public services (such as the enforcement of property rights, as well as power and communications systems), forced an opportunity cost on society etc

Entrepreneurs take huge but not exclusive risks.

Dan_Solo

JillyQ wrote: »

Yes if the employers own the company and have taken all the risks associated with setting it up

Then they can also take the risk that pissing off their employees will lead to them going on strike. Just as the employees have risked that working there will be fine and their employers won't try to screw them.

Roger Hassenforder

JillyQ wrote: »

Yes if the employers own the company and have taken all the risks associated with setting it up

so the employees have no rights?
they've to shut up and do what they're told, they're lucky to have a job?
Staff subject to the vagaries and whims of supervisors and management?
Jim must be spinning in his grave.

JillyQ

Jawgap wrote: »

......but they haven't taken all the risks - they'll have gotten tax breaks, benefitted from public services (such as the enforcement of property rights, as well as power and communications systems), forced an opportunity cost on society etc

Entrepreneurs take huge but not exclusive risks.

And how did they finance the start of there businesses. In alot of cases they have used their homes a collateral. They also use private companies for some of the above services such as communications, Power & Waste.

Jawgap

JillyQ wrote: »

And how did they finance the start of there businesses. In alot of cases they have used their homes a collateral. They also use private companies for some of the above services such as communications, Power & Waste.

Who sets up, organises and enforces the system of property rights that allows them to buy, own, sell and mortgage their home?

Who ensures the banks and finance houses play fair?

Who enforces contract law? (As well as setting it up and administering it) - maybe explain how business could function in the absence of a system of contract law, administered and enforced by public servants?

Who, originally, put in the wires over which power and comms are delivered?

Who built and maintains the roads over which their contracted waste companies travel?

Who ensures the externalities associated with their business don't unreasonably impact on other businesses.....and vice versa?

JillyQ

Jawgap wrote: »

Who sets up, organises and enforces the system of property rights that allows them to buy, own, sell and mortgage their home?

Who ensures the banks and finance houses play fair?

Who enforces contract law? (As well as setting it up and administering it) - maybe explain how business could function in the absence of a system of contract law, administered and enforced by public servants?

Who, originally, put in the wires over which power and comms are delivered?

Who built and maintains the roads over which their contracted waste companies travel?

Who ensures the externalities associated with their business don't unreasonably impact on other businesses.....and vice versa?

How many of those would be more efficient if they were contracted out to private enterprise?

Dan_Solo

JillyQ wrote: »

How many of those would be more efficient if they were contracted out to private enterprise?

None? Is this a real question?
You want to go the whole hog and privatise the army and government too I guess?

Dexter Bip

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Education is an investment but we should as a correctly functioning society heavily scrutinize every penny spent by the state in order to maximize returns and minimize costs. I don't believe we have reached peak possible efficiency in the Education sector and a good way start would be to cut teacher's salaries, increase investment in school assets, increase availability to tertiary education for all students and cut summer holidays.

I don't for one second accept the excuse of teachers or students burning out should we lengthen the academic year. South Korea which is constantly ranked as having some of the best students in the world begins the first semester in March and finishes in mid July then starts the second semester at the end of August and finishes mid February.

I also don't accept your fear that lowering wages would lead to teaching becoming a less desirable job for talented people. As long as we ensure a very high standard is set at MA stage we can ensure there remains a pool of talented teachers to choose from.

At the moment the teaching industry is over subscribed, there are to many potential teachers for not enough jobs. We have room to lower wages and lower demand before we hit a supply problem and that is what we should be doing to ensure maximum return on investment for the tax payer.

Unions will have a problem with these reforms yes, but that is why I suport the whole scale de-unionization of the public sector.

1. Potential teachers will vote with their feet and work where they are better paid. Present teachers have already taken a 20% pay cut and are no longer any way affluent compared to people with similar qualifications. Yes they have permanent jobs but there are no opportunities to move on to higher paid posts no matter how good anybody is. Not the case in industry, but I would say swings and roundabouts.

2. Korea is a different culture and a different work ethic and different expectations on how a pupils will conduct themselves. I know some people teaching there and the job is a lot less stressful for a teacher. At home, are you suggesting to reduce the school holidays to the same level?
The added cost of childcare would be a factor in this for many families.

3. Regarding teacher qualifications in ireland, all programmes have recently been re-evaluated by the Teaching Council and there is no question about the standards. However the idea of spending two years at one's own expense having already completed a three or four year degree in order to enter the teaching profession, probably on part time hours for several years before getting a permanent post, just puts people off.

4. A race to the bottom is entirely possible. Again I say look at the UK.

JillyQ

Dan_Solo wrote: »

None? Is this a real question?
You want to go the whole hog and privatise the army and government too I guess?

No i certainly dont believe that the Army Gardai Fire or Ambulance services should be Privatised That is coming from someone who has family members who have served and are serving in the Army. Those that have left have gone on to be self employed, that is one side of my extended family the other side have been self employed for generations.

I do how ever believe that things like motor tax etc should be privatised

Roger Hassenforder

JillyQ wrote: »

No i certainly dont believe that the Army Gardai Fire or Ambulance services should be Privatised That is coming from someone who has family members who have served and are serving in the Army. Those that have left have gone on to be self employed, that is one side of my extended family the other side have been self employed for generations.

I do how ever believe that things like motor tax etc should be privatised

.... i.e dont privatise things that i have a connection to...?

JillyQ

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

.... i.e dont privatise things that i have a connection to...?

No its logical not to privatise things that have to act for the state.

Roger Hassenforder

JillyQ wrote: »

No its logical not to privatise things that have to act for the state.

or its citizens?

JillyQ

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

or its citizens?

So do you think that every single industry in the country should be in public ownership?

Iwasfrozen

Jawgap wrote: »

Who sets up, organises and enforces the system of property rights that allows them to buy, own, sell and mortgage their home?

Who ensures the banks and finance houses play fair?

Who enforces contract law? (As well as setting it up and administering it) - maybe explain how business could function in the absence of a system of contract law, administered and enforced by public servants?

Who, originally, put in the wires over which power and comms are delivered?

Who built and maintains the roads over which their contracted waste companies travel?

Who ensures the externalities associated with their business don't unreasonably impact on other businesses.....and vice versa?

All of these services are paid for, either directly or indirectly by the business. Are you trying to imply the company has some sort of obligation to their workers for providing these services?

Iwasfrozen

Dexter Bip wrote: »

1. Potential teachers will vote with their feet and work where they are better paid. Present teachers have already taken a 20% pay cut and are no longer any way affluent compared to people with similar qualifications. Yes they have permanent jobs but there are no opportunities to move on to higher paid posts no matter how good anybody is. Not the case in industry, but I would say swings and roundabouts.

I don't think they will, there are barriers of entry to other industries and costs involved with moving.

A good way to test the waters would be to keep the wage frozen for another five years. Which is effectively the same thing as a small pay cut. And if there is an exodus we can look at reversing pay cuts. If not keep the freeze in place until supply meets demand.

2. Korea is a different culture and a different work ethic and different expectations on how a pupils will conduct themselves. I know some people teaching there and the job is a lot less stressful for a teacher. At home, are you suggesting to reduce the school holidays to the same level?
The added cost of childcare would be a factor in this for many families.

Childcare costs will be much lower as students will be in school for a greater proportion of the year.

Yes clearly Korean culture is different but clearly they're doing something right and a little bit of Korean work ethic in our schools wouldn't be a bad thing.

We are supposed to be a knowledge economy, we should study the education system of countries which rank higher than we do and copy what makes them successful.

3. Regarding teacher qualifications in ireland, all programmes have recently been re-evaluated by the Teaching Council and there is no question about the standards. However the idea of spending two years at one's own expense having already completed a three or four year degree in order to enter the teaching profession, probably on part time hours for several years before getting a permanent post, just puts people off.

It's good to hear teachers are undergoing very stringent training this is something I would very highly encourage.

4. A race to the bottom is entirely possible. Again I say look at the UK.

As long as very high standards are set and maintained for students and teachers pay cuts will not cause a race to the bottom.

JillyQ

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All of these services are paid for, either directly or indirectly by the business. Are you trying to imply the company has some sort of obligation to their workers for providing these services?

.

That is exactly what he is trying to say

Iwasfrozen

JillyQ wrote: »

.

That is exactly what he is trying to say

Well that's just silly.

JillyQ

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well that's just silly.

I know

JillyQ

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, absolutely.

agree with you on this one

Jawgap

JillyQ wrote: »

How many of those would be more efficient if they were contracted out to private enterprise?

Seriously?

Enforcement requires that the power to apply force lawfully is retained by the state - you want to outsource the decision to seize property, detain persons and levy fines to the private sector?

What could possibly go wrong with courts run by corporations and a police force supplied by the lowest bidder?

Jawgap

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All of these services are paid for, either directly or indirectly by the business. Are you trying to imply the company has some sort of obligation to their workers for providing these services?

No, if you read what started this line of discussion you'll see I'm merely pointing out that while entrepreneurs take great personal risks starting out the risk is both mitigated and shared with the State.

Therefore the argument that an entrepreneur can run his business as a personal fiefdom because they have taken that risk is wrong.

Therefore, they cannot and should be allowed to treat employees arbitrarily.

Jawgap

JillyQ wrote: »

.

That is exactly what he is trying to say

Actually, it wasn't. See above.

Iwasfrozen

Jawgap wrote: »

No, if you read what started this line of discussion you'll see I'm merely pointing out that while entrepreneurs take great personal risks starting out the risk is both mitigated and shared with the State.

Therefore the argument that an entrepreneur can run his business as a personal fiefdom because they have taken that risk is wrong.

Therefore, they cannot and should be allowed to treat employees arbitrarily.

Leaving aside that very dubious twisting of logic I'd like o ask you what risk is shared by the state if an entrepreneur goes bust? The business pays for all those services either directly or indirectly.

Secondly why does the state assuming risk, if they do, imply unions of workers can blackmail their employees?

JillyQ

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Leaving aside that very dubious twisting of logic I'd like o ask you what risk is shared by the state if an entrepreneur goes bust? The business pays for all those services either directly or indirectly.

Secondly why does the state assuming risk, if they do, imply unions of workers can blackmail their employees?

From what i can see very little as the owners of the business is still liable for the debts.

Roger Hassenforder

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Leaving aside that very dubious twisting of logic I'd like o ask you what risk is shared by the state if an entrepreneur goes bust? The business pays for all those services either directly or indirectly.

who'll pick up the redundancy tab for the employees for this insolvent company?

Jawgap

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Leaving aside that very dubious twisting of logic I'd like o ask you what risk is shared by the state if an entrepreneur goes bust? The business pays for all those services either directly or indirectly.

Secondly why does the state assuming risk, if they do, imply unions of workers can blackmail their employees?

Tax foregone

Any subsidies, grants, etc sunk

Externalities picked up by third parties eg bad debts, repudiated contracts etc

Who picks up the tab when markets fail?

Blackmail is illegal. Employees are free to organise and participate in unions send engage in industrial action within the confines of the law. Employers are free to not recognise unions, again within the confines of the law.

The State sets the context - if an employer doesn't like it, go set up somewhere else

Iwasfrozen

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

who'll pick up the redundancy tab for the employees for this insolvent company?

Who imposed the condition that the company needs to be insolvent? And to answer your question the company pays its employees redundancy.

Iwasfrozen

Jawgap wrote: »

Tax foregone

Any subsidies, grants, etc sunk

Externalities picked up by third parties eg bad debts, repudiated contracts etc

Who picks up the tab when markets fail?

The state, and the above is another example of how tax incentives, subsidiesand grants are damaging to the economy.

Blackmail is illegal. Employees are free to organise and participate in unions send engage in industrial action within the confines of the law. Employers are free to not recognise unions, again within the confines of the law.

The State sets the context - if an employer doesn't like it, go set up somewhere else

I'll ask you again. Why does the state assuming risk, if they do, imply unions of workers can blackmail their employees?

You're tying to make a connection between the state loosing out when a company is in trouble and allowing unions to threaten companies in general.