Ifa membership

frazzledhome

rangler1 wrote: »

Some going and not get banned.

Lol, ducking and divin

whelan2

rangler1 wrote: »

Some going and not get banned.

YET

rangler1

frazzledhome wrote: »

Lol, ducking and divin

OHs over in England at a sheep conference, I went off yesterday at 4 and that's when the trouble started, but I did come home at twelve so it could have been worse, would've been easy rose today

frazzledhome

rangler1 wrote: »

OHs over in England at a sheep conference, I went off yesterday at 4 and that's when the trouble started, but I did come home at twelve so it could have been worse, would've been easy rose today

Ffs, she should stay home in future for the sake of your blood pressure and others

It's clear you're disappointed and let down over it all as are many others. Our branch Agm is shortly and I hope everyone's ire is as high. Lots of in answered questions.

liam7831

Tip of the hat to these lads.....

The €535,000 package compares to a total budget for the organisation of about €12.5 million in 2013. The IFA does not publish details of the remuneration for any of its senior staff.

Smith’s basic salary was significantly higher than the taoiseach’s pay packet, while it stands at more than 10 times the earnings of most farmers. The average producers’ income was just under €27,000 last year, according to Teagasc’s national farm survey.

Deane and several other IFA country chairmen first moved a motion of no confidence against Smith in January, but the attempted putsch was defeated by Downey and others.

rangler1

liam7831 wrote: »

Tip of the hat to these lads.....

The €535,000 package compares to a total budget for the organisation of about €12.5 million in 2013. The IFA does not publish details of the remuneration for any of its senior staff.

Smith’s basic salary was significantly higher than the taoiseach’s pay packet, while it stands at more than 10 times the earnings of most farmers. The average producers’ income was just under €27,000 last year, according to Teagasc’s national farm survey.

Deane and several other IFA country chairmen first moved a motion of no confidence against Smith in January, but the attempted putsch was defeated by Downey and others.

No confidence proposal is different than whats going on now, they were trying to blame him for the organisations poor performance in the beef protest. They were making him a fall guy
Salary was never mentioned

Dunedin

rangler1 wrote: »

IFA don't go to court if at all possible.
but if we did we'd have the best legal team.
We have a solicitor practically on site, and others well informed on law.
So you can take it that if IFA is doing something, it's well advised.
Even at if there's something going on, road deal, windmill deal, esb etc extra experts are brought in

I wouldn’t be too cocky in saying that the ‘legal team’ have it covered. When farmers sell to factory, mart or creamery – it is effectively their wages in return for their work. There is very clear legislation in Ireland regarding this - Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and as part of it, it clearly outlines that it is unlawful to make deductions that fall outside of the employment contract and/or legislative framework e.g. USC, income tax, etc.
Permitted Deductions of Wages
There are only a few situations, set out in section 5 of the Act, where deductions may be made from the employee’s wages and these situations include;

[*] if the law requires it,
[*] if provision is made for the deduction in the contract of employment and
[*] where the employee has given written consent for the deduction.

I don’t think any of the above would fall into the IFA’s levy of which they even go the extra mile to disguise as an ‘EIF’ levy (I didn’t even know myself until yesterday what they called the levy).
Whether or not farmers could retrospectively reclaim monies already paid – probably would be difficult but I wouldn’t discard that fully – some precedence of which a court may draw on would be Army deafness claims.
I, for one, will never pay the levy again until such time as total transparency is provided in regard to;
1. how much is collected
2. what it is collected for
3. what the objectives and outcomes of the said levies are
4. A clear mechanism which allows farmers to legally agree to paying levies i.e. consent given in advance as opposed to the current system

Suckler

Dunedin wrote: »

I wouldn’t be too cocky in saying that the ‘legal team’ have it covered. When farmers sell to factory, mart or creamery – it is effectively their wages in return for their work. There is very clear legislation in Ireland regarding this - Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and as part of it, it clearly outlines that it is unlawful to make deductions that fall outside of the employment contract and/or legislative framework e.g. USC, income tax, etc.

No it isn't. It is nothing to do with wages or a return for their work. It's one business selling a product to another business. Your analogy would imply the farmers are employees of the factories.

Water John

Even for a debt you would have to get a legal attachment order to deduct from a third party payment. Automatic deduction unless you opt out I would solidly bet would not stand up in court.
An analogy is that IW cannot deduct what you owe for water. On the other hand Revenue can deduct property tax because it is a Revenue matter.
I think it would be quite clear, having to opt out is not acceptable legally.

Farmer Ed

Dunedin wrote: »

I wouldn’t be too cocky in saying that the ‘legal team’ have it covered. When farmers sell to factory, mart or creamery – it is effectively their wages in return for their work. There is very clear legislation in Ireland regarding this - Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and as part of it, it clearly outlines that it is unlawful to make deductions that fall outside of the employment contract and/or legislative framework e.g. USC, income tax, etc.
Permitted Deductions of Wages
There are only a few situations, set out in section 5 of the Act, where deductions may be made from the employee’s wages and these situations include;

[*] if the law requires it,
[*] if provision is made for the deduction in the contract of employment and
[*] where the employee has given written consent for the deduction.

I don’t think any of the above would fall into the IFA’s levy of which they even go the extra mile to disguise as an ‘EIF’ levy (I didn’t even know myself until yesterday what they called the levy).
Whether or not farmers could retrospectively reclaim monies already paid – probably would be difficult but I wouldn’t discard that fully – some precedence of which a court may draw on would be Army deafness claims.
I, for one, will never pay the levy again until such time as total transparency is provided in regard to;
1. how much is collected
2. what it is collected for
3. what the objectives and outcomes of the said levies are
4. A clear mechanism which allows farmers to legally agree to paying levies i.e. consent given in advance as opposed to the current system

Unfortunately not that simple. I totally agree with you it should be. Not sure about the IFA but with the CoOps they are not governed by the law in the same way as regular businesses. This is all done under the so called umbrella of the ICOS. They are legally able to get away with it under the 1893 industrial and provident's act. Yes that is not a misprint, 1893 act. I am guessing the IFA are probably hiding behind something like that also. Did you know a CoOp can effectively do what ever they dam well like to you, i.e not pay you or whatever, and you have no legal right to take them to court. You are allowed take them to arbitration, but wait for it. It could cost you 40k plus and the arbitrator has to be appointed by the ICOS. This is where it gets better! The ICOS is normally chaired and controlled by someone from one of the large CoOps.

Water John

Critically we are talking here about a third party deduction. Nobody except Revenue can do this without an order of attachment from the courts. That is pretty clear to me. All marts cops etc deducting these levies without expressed written authorisation from each individual should this week seek legal advice of Senior Council. I could well guess the reply. Coops are not immune to that state law. It is not an internal matter between themselves and their member.

alps

Water John wrote: »

Coops are not immune to that state law. It is not an internal matter between themselves and their member.

Unfortunately it is.

Coop rules state that a disagreement between a farmer shareholder and the coop which cannot be resolved between the 2 must be resolved by arbitration, and the courts will refer it that way.

Not great...

Farmer Ed

Water John wrote: »

Critically we are talking here about a third party deduction. Nobody except Revenue can do this without an order of attachment from the courts. That is pretty clear to me. All marts cops etc deducting these levies without expressed written authorisation from each individual should this week seek legal advice of Senior Council. I could well guess the reply. Coops are not immune to that state law. It is not an internal matter between themselves and their member.

You'd imagine that's the way is should be, in a democracy where everyone has the right to the protection of a public court of law. Indeed under under the EU convention of human rights that is your right.However i'm guessing they will bring out all the big wigs and pull out all the stops to protect the ICOS monopoly.

Water John

Your are usually right Farmer Ed but this relates to payment to a third party. Coop cannot keep this inhouse. Its governed by the law of the land, an illegal deduction, not by ICOS rules, thank goodness.
The marts, factories and milk coops could find themselves owing a lot to farmers for past deductions. Remember banks have had to reimburse clients for such matters over the last few years.

Farmer Ed

Water John wrote: »

Your are usually right Farmer Ed but this relates to payment to a third party. Coop cannot keep this inhouse. Its governed by the law of the land, an illegal deduction, not by ICOS rules, thank goodness.
The marts, factories and milk coops could find themselves owing a lot to farmers for past deductions. Remember banks have had to reimburse clients for such matters over the last few years.

That is actually a very good point. Law is normally decided by precedent. Didn't the banks have to pay back money not so long ago? I wonder will the CoOps and meat plants be calling out the wigs this week? Yes you are prevented from taking your CoOp to court. But I don't think there is anything stopping someone from taking the meat plants or a mart that you are not a shareholder of to court. Interesting times!

Dunedin

Suckler wrote: »

No it isn't. It is nothing to do with wages or a return for their work. It's one business selling a product to another business. Your analogy would imply the farmers are employees of the factories.

You have slightly misled the point here in your response - one business selling a product to another business. but the issue is that a third party have stepped in and taken a levy, in an 'opt out' manner and without any guidance or consultation with the farmer in the first instance.

Yes, under the direct Payment of Wages Legislation in Ireland, it would not be possible to take such a case.

However, if for example in an extreme case like this, if an individual or group representing farmers in Ireland were to take a case to the European Court of Justice (now Court of Justice of the European Union), I would be very surprised if they were not to win their case with possible reference Payment of Wages Legislation.

Water John

Is it simply taking money without your permission. I thought the guards had a word for that, THEFT.

blue5000

Dunedin wrote: »

You have slightly misled the point here in your response - one business selling a product to another business. but the issue is that a third party have stepped in and taken a levy, in an 'opt out' manner and without any guidance or consultation with the farmer in the first instance.

Yes, under the direct Payment of Wages Legislation in Ireland, it would not be possible to take such a case.

However, if for example in an extreme case like this, if an individual or group representing farmers in Ireland were to take a case to the European Court of Justice (now Court of Justice of the European Union), I would be very surprised if they were not to win their case with possible reference Payment of Wages Legislation.

Ahhh I wonder who could we get to take our own union to court??

Water John

Maybe try a lawyer willing to go, no foal no fee, Ha.

wiggy123

so has folk put a stop to ifa taking monies off them, via milk cheque/mart cheque and factory cheque???
also how does one go about it

Farmer Ed

wiggy123 wrote: »

so has folk put a stop to ifa taking monies off them, via milk cheque/mart cheque and factory cheque???
also how does one go about it

Just call them up and while your at them ask them if they can refund you the money you never gave them permission to take. That might be a long shot but no harm in asking.

liam7831

http://ow.ly/UZHZx