Why is everyone going on strike?

Jawgap

newwan wrote: »

Yes there is where It's restoration to unsustainable times. Or do you think everything was just fine with out financial policies in 06?

No, that's why we ditched the policies.

Look, at deal was agreed then the government unilaterally reneged - no people are complaining that others are following that example!

Idbatterim

Yes there is where It's restoration to unsustainable times. Or do you think everything was just fine with out financial policies in 06?

agreed. Take a look at the roles they are doing and what they are being paid. Forget blanket hikes in my opinion. Lets start practicing that most beloved or Irish words, FAIRNESS. No doubt some are being underpaid and some overpaid...

The younger members were left hung out to dry by the Im alright jack in their mid 40's and up, most of who probably have inherited or bought property for non rip off prices...

Green Peter

newwan wrote:

Yes there is where It's restoration to unsustainable times. Or do you think everything was just fine with out financial policies in 06?

Private sector banks broke this country not public servants

Green Peter

Green Peter wrote: »

Private sector banks broke this country not public servants

Of course the truth is nowhere near either of these extremes you post, but instead somewhere quite snugly in the middle.

Idbatterim

Private sector banks broke this country not public servants

their pay bill and pensions (for many of the middle and older public servants) and that of welfare is off the wall. Also the bank debt was a once off, the outrageous welfare bill in particular, the off the wall welfare bill is a yearly expense some would call it, outright waste in my opinion...

Nama expected to make 2.3 billion profit and pay off bulk od debt next year...

http://www.independent.ie/business/nama-to-generate-23bn-surplus-and-pay-off-bulk-of-debt-next-year-35184452.html

evolving_doors

Idbatterim wrote: »

their pay bill and pensions (for many of the middle and older public servants) and that of welfare is off the wall. Also the bank debt was a once off, the outrageous welfare bill in particular, the off the wall welfare bill is a yearly expense some would call it, outright waste in my opinion...

Nama expected to make 2.3 billion profit and pay off bulk od debt next year...

http://www.independent.ie/business/nama-to-generate-23bn-surplus-and-pay-off-bulk-of-debt-next-year-35184452.html

200bn debt was not caused by public sectors...
Btw Nama made a profit! Are you thinking we made a profit out of the property bubble! We recapitalised the banks and took on their property. We got NAMA to buy our tenners for a fiver and now they sell on the tenners for seven. That ain't profit.
This was private debt we the citizens took on.
Nothing to do with public sector wage bill.
There's a wee bit of revisionism going on around here and it stinks.

BoJack Horseman

Gebgbegb wrote: »

200bn debt was not caused by public sectors...

A large slice of it was.....there can be no denying that.

The government didn't reach a primary budget balance/surplus until 2015

newwan

Green Peter wrote: »

Private sector banks broke this country not public servants

Yeah that's why I can't afford my repayments on my mansion in tull a more. It cause of the bankers offering their sub prime mortgages to guys like me. Wait a minute. I'm a guy like me... 😯

evolving_doors

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

A large slice of it was.....there can be no denying that.

The government didn't reach a primary budget balance/surplus until 2015

Yes there can be denying that a large slice of the 200bn debt came from public sector wage costs..

If you know the figures then out with it, how much did bank recapitalisation cost?

Gebgbegb

Gebgbegb wrote: »

200bn debt was not caused by public sectors...
Btw Nama made a profit! Are you thinking we made a profit out of the property bubble! We recapitalised the banks and took on their property. We got NAMA to buy our tenners for a fiver and now they sell on the tenners for seven. That ain't profit.
This was private debt we the citizens took on.
Nothing to do with public sector wage bill.
There's a wee bit of revisionism going on around here and it stinks.

I would be interested to see you total up the 'blame'. These are readily available figures of course.

So where did the 200bn debt come from?

Bass Reeves

Jawgap wrote: »

Some things bear repeating. Fact is, farming is dangerous and not only can it be made safer, it is wholly within the power of the farming community to make it safer - for example, if people just respected the rules around PTOs and slurry pits. Policing can never be made safer - it's only getting more dangerous as the ongoing gang feuding shows.

I'm not sure where you get the allusion to pots and kettles - I'm happy to admit I've 2 sprogs, and on occasion I've paid for their childcare or made other arrangements - I just never whinged on about it, I just got on with trying to bring them up (i.e. not screw their lives up).

What you forget is that the Gardai have a compensation scheme for injury at work. This has been in place for a long time.Here is a recent case

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/100k-for-garda-who-suffered-unusual-wrist-injury-while-making-arrest-34842437.html

So along with compensating them with individual compensation we must pay them a way higher than the average wage across any sector in the country.

Like you I have kids all grown up. We were lucky where childcare was concerned as my better half was lucky enough to be able to jobshare in her job. However some are not as lucky as you and me neither might our children be. It has not been an issue to me but I can see where it was and is a huge issue to other. It again is more of an issue in the private sector than the public sector where there are shorter working hours and other flexible practices that are not available accross the private sector.

Jawgap wrote: »

Nothing wrong with pay restoration - FEMPI was brought in to address a financial emergency......as a series of Exchequer Returns have made abundantly clear, the emergency has passed - why shouldn't people look for the restoration of something that was removed unilaterally?

....and yes, like everyone I started on a rubbish salary and worked my way up, but I certainly don't begrudge people like Gardai and nurses getting a higher salary - it's only when you're in trouble you realise how valuable these people are.

While the emergency has passed we have choices to make as to how we spend any new economic flexibility. But again we see those that started the PS greed the GRA and the ASTI heading to the trought and careless as to the outcome

Jawgap wrote: »

No, that's why we ditched the policies.

Look, at deal was agreed then the government unilaterally reneged - no people are complaining that others are following that example!

The Goverment had no choice should we have gone down the Greek route. In a way I wish we had. I still wish we had been forced out or left the euro as it would have left those that snort at the trough with nowhere to go.

Green Peter wrote: »

Private sector banks broke this country not public servants

You would want to look at the facts Green Pet. We have a national debt of about 2o5 billion. In 2006 we had a national debt of about 43 billion. The banking crisis cost the state less than 50 billion. That leaves over 115 billion, over 50% of the nation debt created by state spending. In 2010 we had a situation if not corrected where we would have bought in about 34 billion in income and were going to spend over 60 billion. What happened we could no afford it as bond interest rates were heading for 15%. The Trioka stepped in to bail us out, not because of the banks but because were were spending nearly double what we were earning. We are still spending more than we bring in in tax but have some fiscal flexibility. However we have to remember to keep the pigs away from the trough or we will get sick again

BoJack Horseman

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Yes there can be denying that a large slice of the 200bn debt came from public sector wage costs

As Emmet says.... break down the €200bn if you will.

Its all on the ol' google.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

how much did bank recapitalisation cost?

You will find that out as part of your journey to enlightenment wrt the €200bn breakdown.

Geuze

Gebgbegb wrote: »

If you know the figures then out with it, how much did bank recapitalisation cost?

64-65bn

evolving_doors

Geuze wrote: »

64-65bn

Thanks Geuze, ..I was wrong it wasn't 200bn.. Does the above include the estimated interest costs of the borrowing.

evolving_doors

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

A large slice of it was.....there can be no denying that.

The government didn't reach a primary budget balance/surplus until 2015

BoJack... How much of that is public sector wages... What is a large slice?

Mr.Micro

In answer to the original question. There is a weak Government in office, so some will seek to exploit that fact. We have two at present at the trough. One appears to have been successful, the other still in strike mode, Garda and the teachers.

BoJack Horseman

Gebgbegb wrote: »

BoJack... How much of that is public sector wages

You tell me.

I mean, how much of any expenditure item is funded?

If the government spend (as they were) €20bn on PS wages/pensions & the deficit is say €10bn, then what is funded & what is unfunded and thus requires bonds to pay for?

In essence, you are asking the unanswerable..... but you know that.

thomasdylan

There's not enough money in the pot for everyone to get a payrise. The government are going to have to put a marker down. They couldn't with the gardai so it'll be interesting to see who gets made an example of. Teachers have a strong union and have shown in the past they're not exactly afraid to strike so I'm not sure how the gov would fancy their chances. They probably won't be able to with nurses and doctors because of theyre struggling to attract medical staff.

Jawgap

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What you forget is that the Gardai have a compensation scheme for injury at work. This has been in place for a long time.Here is a recent case

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/100k-for-garda-who-suffered-unusual-wrist-injury-while-making-arrest-34842437.html

So along with compensating them with individual compensation we must pay them a way higher than the average wage across any sector in the country.

Actually, if you read back you'll see I didn't. And while a Guard injured on duty gets a payout, it's hardly 'compensation' - one of my family suffered a broken eye socket while on duty......nearly six months off work, two operations, several wondering if he'd be blind in the eye, several months wondering if his vision would be good enough to allow him to return to duty, and countless medical assessments......he got just shy of €60k for it.......which sounds like a lot, but he'd have given every cent back not to have gone through what he did......and now he's left with chronic headaches.......

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Some things bear repeating. Fact is, farming is dangerous and not only can it be made safer, it is wholly within the power of the farming community to make it safer - for example, if people just respected the rules around PTOs and slurry pits. Policing can never be made safer - it's only getting more dangerous as the ongoing gang feuding shows.

I'm not sure where you get the allusion to pots and kettles - I'm happy to admit I've 2 sprogs, and on occasion I've paid for their childcare or made other arrangements - I just never whinged on about it, I just got on with trying to bring them up (i.e. not screw their lives up).

Absolutely breathtaking disrespect for farmers, their lives and their families. Farmers face unpredictable dangers as well.

Why don't you just come out and say it. A garda's life is more important than a farmer's life.

Things could be made safer for the garda as well if less money went on salaries and allowances and more recruitment. Then they could so out in twos and threes.

Notice how they did not campaign for both more recruitment and the money grab in recent days

Jawgap

salonfire wrote: »

Absolutely breathtaking disrespect for farmers, their lives and their families. Farmers face unpredictable dangers as well.

Why don't you just come out and say it. A garda's life is more important than a farmer's life.

Things could be made safer for the garda as well if less money went on salaries and allowances and more recruitment. Then they could so out in twos and threes.

Notice how they did not campaign for both more recruitment and the money grab in recent days

I'm not sure how you get that. My father-in-law farms, and it's just a commentary on the different professions.....fact is farmers are not required to hazard their safety to protect their communities or fellow citizens.

Sounds like you want Gardaí to choose between salaries and proper PPE, a lot of them already buy kit out of their own pocket that the force should provide.

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

And add to that the recent offer of 4k rent allowance.

So now in a matter of minutes, we went from you quoting 23,000 to 23,000 + "only a few thousand" + 4k rent allowance offer + recent 15min parade offer for newbies.

Since I quoted this, now we have

23,000 + "only a few thousand" + 4k rent allowance offer + recent 15min parade offer + Annual Leave allowance + Landsdown Road increases + increments + knock on increases in exisiting allowance and future pension entitlement.

And they say the new gardai are badly off.


Funny how the GRA has gone very quiet on the fact new gardai are still on a lower starting salary (after new entrant pay cuts).

The fact the seniors got another slice of the pie must have sweetened that pill

Bass Reeves

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not sure how you get that. My father-in-law farms, and it's just a commentary on the different professions.....fact is farmers are not required to hazard their safety to protect their communities or fellow citizens.

Sounds like you want Gardaí to choose between salaries and proper PPE, a lot of them already buy kit out of their own pocket that the force should provide.

No they are not required.......... neither are were fishermen.....It is a horrible fact that we all ignore danger. But we all have choices and it is up to us to access the danger.

The farmer thinks it will not be him. You seem to think that is choice. Have you had to make that choice.

Jawgap

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No they are not required.......... neither are were fishermen.....It is a horrible fact that we all ignore danger. But we all have choices and it is up to us to access the danger.

The farmer thinks it will not be him. You seem to think that is choice. Have you had to make that choice.

Nope and neither do construction workers......and none of them are oath-bound to uphold human rights and the law and constitution of the country......

......and we don't ignore the dangers they face.....that's why we have so many agencies, staffed by dedicated and learned public servants, held in high contempt it seems, working hard to make farming safer through education, information, advice, and, when it's required, enforcement.

Btw, if a farmer or anyone involved in farming, fishing or construction doesn't like the look of the job they're free to walk off it, Guards can't. In fact, you can't just resign you need permission to do so.

Geuze

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Thanks Geuze, ..I was wrong it wasn't 200bn.. Does the above include the estimated interest costs of the borrowing.

No.

Note that we didn't have to borrow 65bn, as we liquidated assets in the NPRF to finance some of the re-capitalisation.

Charles Babbage

hmmm wrote: »

During the Celtic Tiger, our tax revenue was dependent on bubble property revenue. Today, it is dependent on unsustainable Corporation Tax receipts from companies using us as a tax haven. In both cases, that income can disappear overnight due to events outside our control.

Our government should be putting that money aside as "exceptional", and not basing our spending level on the back of it. Sadly we seem to be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past over and over again.

This is the type of analysis that is needed. However, the government doesn't want analysis as it wants to hand out money and reduce taxes. It has tried the view that the times are good for one purpose (tax cuts) while still trying to justify "emergency" legislation for reducing PS pay, not surprisingly the PS see through this bullcrap.

We have come out of this crisis without any sense of what is the long term stable level of public expenditure and so taxation that is appropriate and even worse without any intention of trying to establish this.

Idbatterim

Public sector pay deals will lead to fresh fiscal disaster

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/public-sector-pay-deals-will-lead-to-fresh-fiscal-disaster-35191635.html

good article by colm mccarthy in todays indo. As far as im concerned, at this stage, might be best for the **** to hit the fan again soon economically. Will save us from repeating the exact same mistakes as last time.

There is mention to fund this, that income taxes would need to be increased, not a chance this will happen.

cut the welfare bonus, theres 350,000,000 saved for a start towards public sector pay increases...

Jawgap

Idbatterim wrote: »

Public sector pay deals will lead to fresh fiscal disaster

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/public-sector-pay-deals-will-lead-to-fresh-fiscal-disaster-35191635.html

good article by colm mccarthy in todays indo. As far as im concerned, at this stage, might be best for the **** to hit the fan again soon economically. Will save us from repeating the exact same mistakes as last time...

There is mention to fund this, that income taxes would need to be increased, not a chance this will happen.

cut the welfare bonus, theres 350,000,000 saved for a start towards public sector pay increases...

"Public sector pay deals will lead to fresh fiscal disaster"

Pity Colm wasn't so clairvoyant roundabout 2007......plus, really? Shouldn't this be headlined "Economist who works closely with government promotes government line in noted anti-public service rag"?

fliball123

Jawgap wrote: »

Nothing wrong with pay restoration - FEMPI was brought in to address a financial emergency......as a series of Exchequer Returns have made abundantly clear, the emergency has passed - why shouldn't people look for the restoration of something that was removed unilaterally?

....and yes, like everyone I started on a rubbish salary and worked my way up, but I certainly don't begrudge people like Gardai and nurses getting a higher salary - it's only when you're in trouble you realise how valuable these people are.

so borrowing 2 billion this year and being over 200 billion in debt an impending pensions timebomb and a threat that corpo tax may disappear and throw in brexit and the uncertainty in the U.S and you think the emergency has passed..My god I would love to live in your bubble wrap world

fliball123

Green Peter wrote: »

Private sector banks broke this country not public servants

Eh no they are about 40 billion worth of blame where did the other 166 billion we owe go?

Bass Reeves

Jawgap wrote: »

"Public sector pay deals will lead to fresh fiscal disaster"

Pity Colm wasn't so clairvoyant roundabout 2007......plus, really? Shouldn't this be headlined "Economist who works closely with government promotes government line in noted anti-public service rag"?

TBH Colm McCarthy was one of the economists that from 2005 was warning about issue regarding the Celtic Pig. He was constantly on about the borrowing and our dependence on property related taxes. It was he that got flak after a Questions and Answers program when he said somthing like '' it will be Joe sixpack that will suffer the fallout''. He used this in reference that the losers would be ordinary workers. Morgan Kelly was another as was David McWilliams who all warned about the potential fall out. Dan McLoughlin of BOI was one of the bullish economists.

PeadarCo

Jawgap wrote:

Pity Colm wasn't so clairvoyant roundabout 2007......plus, really? Shouldn't this be headlined "Economist who works closely with government promotes government line in noted anti-public service rag"?

Its posts like this that make me question people not live through the last 10/15 years or so.

Jawgap instead of shooting the messenger what is wrong with what Colm MacCarthy wrote?

Jawgap

PeadarCo wrote: »

Its posts like this that make me question people not live through the last 10/15 years or so.

Jawgap instead of shooting the messenger what is wrong with what Colm MacCarthy wrote?

Seriously?

This must be a historic piece - an economist speaking in such definite terms!

Please! I'm not doubting McCarthy's credentials or that he believes his analysis is soundly rooted in the various theories he subscribes to.....I'm questioning his ability to foretell the future.

PeadarCo

Jawgap wrote:

Please! I'm not doubting McCarthy's credentials or that he believes his analysis is soundly rooted in the various theories he subscribes to.....I'm questioning his ability to foretell the future.

What's wrong with his projections? Why do you believe they are improbable? Fairly simple questions and the basis of a good debate.

I read the piece and concur with a lot of what he says.

PeadarCo

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously?

This must be a historic piece - an economist speaking in such definite terms!

Please! I'm not doubting McCarthy's credentials or that he believes his analysis is soundly rooted in the various theories he subscribes to.....I'm questioning his ability to foretell the future.

Heres the link to the piece in question if it hasn't been posted already.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/public-sector-pay-deals-will-lead-to-fresh-fiscal-disaster-35191635.html

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

Eh no they are about 40 billion worth of blame where did the other 166 billion we owe go?

Fiscal deficits each year, over many years, due to spending exceeding revenue.

Vizzy

Geuze wrote: »

Fiscal deficits each year, over many years, due to spending exceeding revenue.

Gueze,

Did Investment banking play a role/cost the country at all ?

K-9

Well property development loans made up most, if not all the loans that went into NAMA. The money that went into the banks was mostly due to issues relating to property. Then again the likes of Anglo and INBS were investors in property so...
Suppose it depends on what investment banking is defined as!

I do think there is a narrative developing, and a dangerous one at that, that banking wasn't that big a deal and public sector pay etc. was the main problem.

We were borrowing to pay wages, welfare and keep the show on the road. Yes, wages and SW was artificially inflated but remember the root cause of that? Banking and property speculation.

So just as I think Jayop is wrong to dismiss McCarthy and his narrative (remember we ignored the doomsayers in 06 and look how that turned out), we are in danger of forgetting how banks got us into this mess. We'd forgotten about the likes of PMPA and AIB bail outs in the 80's by 2000!

Jawgap

PeadarCo wrote: »

What's wrong with his projections? Why do you believe they are improbable? Fairly simple questions and the basis of a good debate.

I read the piece and concur with a lot of what he says.

As I said I'm sure they make sense to him, from his perspective as an economist and the school he subscribes to.

Marie Sherlock, SIPTU's hired gun, thinks the economy is overheating.

Point being, economists have perspectives - none of them have a monopoly on the truth, and they rarely if ever speak in definitives......and that's one reason why Truman preferred one armed ones

EDIT: I don't think McCarthy is wrong, I'm just not convinced he's so right that he can predict the future with the degree of certainty the headline suggested

K-9

Well then I'd say the common denominator between those two is we need to be careful and prudent! Tax receipts aren't soaring ahead as before, the Department may well have got their projections for the year right for a change!

PeadarCo

Jawgap wrote:

As I said I'm sure they make sense to him, from his perspective as an economist and the school he subscribes to.

Could you stop deflecting and actually address the arguments in the article. All your doing is casting aspersions on Colm McCarthys cridentials. But you don't actually seem to have a counter point to his actual points. If you disagree with his economic views surely your capable of countering them on economic terms.

My reading of it is that the argument is that public pay increases are unaffordable or if affordable only in the best case economic scenario(remember the idea of house prices only ever going up). The only way long term way of affording the demands is by increased taxes. Which is grand but no politician or union is advocating that.

Jawgap

PeadarCo wrote: »

Could you stop deflecting and actually address the arguments in the article. All your doing is casting aspersions on Colm McCarthys cridentials. But you don't actually seem to have a counter point to his actual points. If you disagree with his economic views surely your capable of countering them on economic terms.

My reading of it is that the argument is that public pay increases are unaffordable or if affordable only in the best case economic scenario(remember the idea of house prices only ever going up). The only way long term way of affording the demands is by increased taxes. Which is grand but no politician or union is advocating that.

I'm not deflecting.....my issue was with the certainty articulated in the headline. In my experience, it's unusual for an economist to assert a position in such definitive terms.

I wouldn't consider myself expert enough to refute his arguments which is why I wrote.....

Jawgap wrote: »

.....

EDIT: I don't think McCarthy is wrong, I'm just not convinced he's so right that he can predict the future with the degree of certainty the headline suggested

Bass Reeves

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not deflecting.....my issue was with the certainty articulated in the headline. In my experience, it's unusual for an economist to assert a position in such definitive terms.

I wouldn't consider myself expert enough to refute his arguments which is why I wrote.....

So what you are really saying is that I have no way of disagreeing with his analysis and cannot refute it. However is dose not suit my point of view.

In reality he is saying that PS pay rises are possible but we will need to raise tax rates by 2-3%. Do you think it is right that we should take a risk and rise the pay of PS. These are workers who are already earning more than those in the private sector and higher than comparable rates across the EU. They also have better pensions. To do that we need to rise tax rates by 2-3%.

This is the cold reality of what we are facing. There was 1 billion to play around within this years budget. Next year it may be more or less the same or we may have no economic latitude at all.

Jawgap

Bass Reeves wrote: »

So what you are really saying is that I have no way of disagreeing with his analysis and cannot refute it. However is dose not suit my point of view.

In reality he is saying that PS pay rises are possible but we will need to raise tax rates by 2-3%. Do you think it is right that we should take a risk and rise the pay of PS. These are workers who are already earning more than those in the private sector and higher than comparable rates across the EU. They also have better pensions. To do that we need to rise tax rates by 2-3%.

This is the cold reality of what we are facing. There was 1 billion to play around within this years budget. Next year it may be more or less the same or we may have no economic latitude at all.

No, what I'm really saying is what I've written.....

I don't think McCarthy is wrong, I'm just not convinced he's so right that he can predict the future with the degree of certainty the headline suggested

I'm an uncomplicated fellow....I mean what I say and say what I mean. If you want to read into those words something beyond their literal meaning then be my guest.

Godge

Bass Reeves wrote: »

So what you are really saying is that I have no way of disagreeing with his analysis and cannot refute it. However is dose not suit my point of view.

In reality he is saying that PS pay rises are possible but we will need to raise tax rates by 2-3%. Do you think it is right that we should take a risk and rise the pay of PS. These are workers who are already earning more than those in the private sector and higher than comparable rates across the EU. They also have better pensions. To do that we need to rise tax rates by 2-3%.

This is the cold reality of what we are facing. There was 1 billion to play around within this years budget. Next year it may be more or less the same or we may have no economic latitude at all.

Those are good points, but there are counter-points.

(1) The cost of living is higher in Ireland than across the EU, thereby justifying their higher salaries

(2) They earn more than the private sector because they have contracted out low-paying low-quality jobs to the private sector

(3) They earn more than the private sector because the qualifications required for public service jobs are higher

(4) Their pension values have been cut through the introduction of the new pension scheme

(5) The idea that we will need 2-3% tax increases doesn't allow for the multiplier effect.

Idbatterim

My reading of it is that the argument is that public pay increases are unaffordable or if affordable only in the best case economic scenario(remember the idea of house prices only ever going up). The only way long term way of affording the demands is by increased taxes. Which is grand but no politician or union is advocating that.

why does it have to be tax increases only? Or is this unique to Ireland. They can pull out hundreds of millions for a bloody welfare bonus. Scrap that and give it to the public sector workers towards pay restoration. Its a grey area, but they are certainly more worthy of it, than sending more money up in smoke on welfare...

Geuze

Vizzy wrote: »

Gueze,

Did Investment banking play a role/cost the country at all ?

Do you mean the banking crisis, which cost the taxpayer 64-65bn?

Wanderer78

Idbatterim wrote: »

why does it have to be tax increases only? Or is this unique to Ireland. They can pull out hundreds of millions for a bloody welfare bonus. Scrap that and give it to the public sector workers towards pay restoration. Its a grey area, but they are certainly more worthy of it, than sending more money up in smoke on welfare...

or maybe we could tax corporations more, or even make sure they pay the bloody 12.5%, create a public banking system and/or keep the bloody banks nationalised so the profits can be put to use within our country

KwackerJack

Not everyone is......only public sector!

Go on strike as a private sector worker and all you will get is your P45!!

Who fights for the private sector......nobody....who gets them from surviving to a comfortable living.....nobody!!

In the private sector you have to work your hole off for years to get anywhere, in the public sector you just go on strike and the government crumble!

I'm not saying they don't deserve the pay, however they do have a choice regarding their employment.

Gardai, Dublin Bus, Health Workers and im sure Irish rail will jump on the band wagon to! What they get restored will be taken away by other means. This usually means higher or stealth taxes which comes from the general public......private sector screwed again

Give more to the politicians, more to the unemployed, more to public sector, more to the banks and let corporations dodge tax and let the joe soap private sector workers pay for it all!!

Jawgap

KwackerJack wrote: »

Not everyone is......only public sector!

Go on strike as a private sector worker and all you will get is your P45!!

Who fights for the private sector......nobody....who gets them from surviving to a comfortable living.....nobody!!

In the private sector you have to work your hole off for years to get anywhere, in the public sector you just go on strike and the government crumble!

I'm not saying they don't deserve the pay, however they do have a choice regarding their employment.

Gardai, Dublin Bus, Health Workers and im sure Irish rail will jump on the band wagon to! What they get restored will be taken away by other means. This usually means higher or stealth taxes which comes from the general public......private sector screwed again

Didn't the LUAS drivers kick all this off?

And aren't they a private company?

Operating a public contract, granted, but lots of private companies, my employer included, provide services into the public sector.