Underpaid jobs

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

OldNotWIse

Civil servants who started at a certain arbitrary point in time as opposed to their equivalent counters who started after them. I work alongside people who get a 12.5% "productivity allowance" whatever the f*ck that is, on top of their gross while others who started after them do not get the 12.5% but do the same work.

Lille16

Bar staff and waiters/waitresses are very underpaid and underappreciated in my opinion. I think its harsh and untrue to refer to either job as 'un-skilled'. It is a tough job with un-sociable hours but the customer service and craft that goes into both do not get the respect I think those people deserve.

PMBC

topcatcbr wrote: »

I hate the way we put each other down. There is always those who think everyone else is paid too much.

The truth is that the difference in pay between management and staff in all sectors of society does not reflect the difference in work levels or responsibility. Especially when it comes to senior management.

The public sector is prime example. With all the cuts imposed on the frontline staff pay the management got proportionally less cuts. But when there is increases given eg benchmarking they got much higher increases.

The trend being that the gap between the rich and poor getting higher all the time.

So in my opinion this needs to be adjusted everywhere. All lower paid jobes should be brought up to a point that in all organisations the highest paid should get the same increase as the lowest paid. This system of management getting pay increase through efficiency by cutting the lower paid who actually do the work is unjust.

So stop belittling each other.

Have to agree.
Instead of berating workers with 'good' pensions all should be proposing the same as standard. IMHO more socially advanced countries have a much lower multiplier between top and average/bottom wages. It would challenge management, if they wanted such higher levels, to increase overall performance; then all would benefit. The disparities with the share of the benefits to labour compared with Capital are well known and, as far as I have read, not disputes. Warren Buffet said recently, that is one of the things with Capitalism referring to take overs - you must cut numbers. While it is a very/most efficient system, pure capitalism is not what is practised. The neo-liberal is for socialising losses.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Lille16 wrote: »

Bar staff and waiters/waitresses are very underpaid and underappreciated in my opinion. I think its harsh and untrue to refer to either job as 'un-skilled'. It is a tough job with un-sociable hours but the customer service and craft that goes into both do not get the respect I think those people deserve.

Worked in a hotel when younger. Did bar work (pub and at functions), waitering and portering. All low skill. Yes it can be hectic in some scenarios, and not everyone is suited to it, but it's low skill.

PMBC

keeponhurling wrote: »

This is irrelevant.
The market sets the rate. 
If pay is high and lots of people are applying, the rate will come down.
If pay is too low, nobody will apply so pay will need to be increased.
Engineering firms will pay engineers what is needed to get hire and retain them (and not more).

The market does not (always) work because information/sharing/availability is imperfect 9asymmetric, I think, is the term e.g. the market saying was that a rising tide would lift all boats - and it didn't. Also the market is subject to improprieties, cartel behaviour, price fixing. Why, for example, used most pubs in a small town have the same price list; why do all the doctors in such towns charge the same fee? I've worked on projects where some were very poorly rewarded and as a result were of such poor standard that work was very difficult, things were done incorrectly resulting in overwork by others. Owner was only interested in final result/bottom line. Lots, including me, left.

Potential-Monke

Service roles in general. People look down on them, waiters, waitresses, bar staff, etc. I thoroughly enjoy being a waiter, and even have a qualification in it, but the wages are not career worthy. I would love to have stayed in a certain waiting role, but i couldn't justify it as i was giving 100% every day (because i loved the work) but with no prospect of increased wages ever (unless government mandated) meant i had to leave a job i love because of wages.

Same now, after 10 years of being a Garda (wages are good, cuts and taxes took most of it, definitely newer ones aren't paid enough for the work they do), i reverted back to a Customer Service role (another area i have massive interest in). €19k a year, nothing for working unsocial hours, and basic pay + extra days leave for working bank holidays (which you have no choice in if you're rostered). And this is the reason the customer service in most of these companies is shocking. Pay peanuts, get monkeys. As i said, i have a massive interest in proper customer service, as i've been at the end of terrible customer service so many times. I'm one of those rare agents who actually cares about his job, picks up after others and have higher up "management" getting me to do their callbacks for them. I get nothing extra, and i'm only doing it because i'm hoping it will help with promotion. Most others are in the boat of "basic wage, basic service". Put the wages up, have proper monitoring, and the agents will be happier which means they will work better and improve their companies standing (customer service in the telecommunications industry is shockingly bad, but can be easily improved if they only listened to the people who actually do the job).

As for the person(s) saying lower rank footballers get paid pittance in comparison. I honestly think they're all on too much, even those on 10k a week. Like, they have my yearly wages in less than 2 weeks. I have no sympathy for any of them, and actually detest most of the high-income footballers, because while they're usually better at scoring/defending/etc compared to the lower paid ones, they also dive at every available opportunity, and have life shattering injuries until they realise they got their free...

Martin567

valoren wrote: »

Tevez is an outlier example, he probably can't believe he earns such cash.
The Ronaldos et al are well compensated despite taxation, they are so good that it is inevitable.
And they, like professional golfers, can earn more off the field than on it.

I'm looking at mid table mediocrity teams, the Hull City's, Middlesborough's. You can't have a premier league with the top 4 teams. Say you're 28 and reaching the peak of your career, you get a contract for ?30,000 a week (average PL wages) with West Ham and you earn ?780,000 a year. A brilliant wage for such a mid-table club.

You get ?3 million over a 4 year contract, meanwhile the game itself has in that intervening period earns multiple billions.
You start looking at that ?3 million like crumbs from a main feast. That to me is being underpaid in the bigger picture.

It's no wonder you'd need a solid agent to negotiating for you, I would never begrudge a professional footballer earning what are looked on as obscene wages.

I would disagree totally with your argument. A player earning ?25k per week (below average PL wages) will earn ?5.2m over the course of a four year contract. Yes, it's a short career but a 'normal' person earning ?50k p.a. would take 100 years to earn that much.

So that's a guaranteed gross pay of ?5.2m for in many cases not very good performance. If you think about it, there are at least 400-500 players in the English PL earning in excess of ?1m per annum. Factor in all the other leagues around the world and you have several thousand professional footballers earning above this figure.

If you compare those earnings with individual sports like golf or tennis, which are completely performance related, there is a huge difference. There might be 100 golfers (probably less) who earn ?1m from playing in a year and a lot less again in tennis. The relative standard these players have to reach to earn that much is far greater than for football and it can all disappear in an instant if they lose their game. There is no guarantee of a 4 year contract, etc.

I don't particularly begrudge footballers either but to suggest they are underpaid is ridiculous in my opinion. Yes, there is a lot of money in the game through TV rights & sponsorship deals but most clubs are not breaking even due to the huge wages they pay. Chelsea and Man City would be insolvent long ago if it weren't for their benevolent owners and many smaller clubs gamble everything on continued participation in the top division.

Elemonator

Barristers. I'm serious.

Not many seem to be aware that it is a self employed profession and when you are finished training, you are out on your own. You have to build a name for yourself. You can't form chambers or go into partnership with another barrister.

I am aware some make millions at the Bar but there are many in there just surviving.

PMBC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Free secondary came about 63 - I know cos I got a Council school around same time. Free third level came about 68. I also benefited from that and have always been grateful to the ratepayers and taxpayers at the time who funded it. So you would be talking about over 65s.
Department of Finance and the greatly admired TK Whittaker weren't that happy as the Minister announced it without consulting them. Since then it has been seen to be a factor in this country's economic growth and foreign direct investment.
OK - what does free education mean now? Levies, registration fees, mandatory contributions etc.!

Kyleboy

Bus drivers

blanch152

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is a separate discussion and a separate argument. All I am doing is correcting the misleading statement below:

topcatcbr wrote: »

The public sector is prime example. With all the cuts imposed on the frontline staff pay the management got proportionally less cuts. .

That simply isn't true, no matter how many times it is repeated on social media.

_Brian

topcatcbr wrote: »

Not true.

If you're parents are self employed you will not get any assistance. There are many other cases which may stop u being able to avail of third level education.

I really hate the whole self employed get no support.

It's a personal decision to go down this route rather than traditional employment, if your chosen field doesn't provide for sending your children to college then rethink your choices, but it's not right to have at low paid workers availing of supports.

blanch152

PMBC wrote: »

Free secondary came about 63 - I know cos I got a Council school around same time. Free third level came about 68. I also benefited from that and have always been grateful to the ratepayers and taxpayers at the time who funded it. So you would be talking about over 65s.
Department of Finance and the greatly admired TK Whittaker weren't that happy as the Minister announced it without consulting them. Since then it has been seen to be a factor in this country's economic growth and foreign direct investment.
OK - what does free education mean now? Levies, registration fees, mandatory contributions etc.!

Wait a minute.


Free second-level education was only announced in 1966 and implemented in 1967.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/10/06/donogh-omalleys-1966-announcement-of-free-education-the-hidden-history/


Free third-level education wasn't available until 1996, brought in by Labour, and subsequently abolished by Fianna Fail in 2009.

TerrorFirmer

Lille16 wrote: »

Bar staff and waiters/waitresses are very underpaid and underappreciated in my opinion. I think its harsh and untrue to refer to either job as 'un-skilled'.

I think some people are missing the fact that un-skilled reflects a certain type of a role, it's not some sort of depreciative remark made against people in them.

A bar man or waiter is generally an unskilled position. It doesn't mean you don't get great barman and that there aren't some who earn a very good wage. It doesn't mean they don't work hard either. Nor does it mean that there are literally no skills involved.

The position itself is unskilled - anyone can do it, notwithstanding again the fact that some will be better than others.

My last job was unskilled and I was better at it than most people but I earned a lot more in that position than I do now as a semi-skilled worker.

PMBC

gossamer wrote: »

Cleaners, full-stop. The money starting out can be farcical. Part-time cleaning work is taxed to the balls, too. Not to mention the absolute state fully-functioning adults leave the toilets in, pigs would be easier to clean up after. It's a valuable service, I have no idea why they're not getting paid more.

From reading boards posts it seems hotel cleaners are treated disgracefully - same as UK

bear1

I'm surprised that the poster who started the other thread hasn't joined in on this one.
I'd have thought he'd have loads to offer on who is underpaid :rolleyes:
Completely agree re the nurses, undervalued and underpaid.

diomed

I can't answer as I don't know what everyone is paid.
My guess is everyone except Garda, HSE employees, public service.

PMBC

blanch152 wrote: »

Wait a minute.


Free second-level education was only announced in 1966 and implemented in 1967.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/10/06/donogh-omalleys-1966-announcement-of-free-education-the-hidden-history/


Free third-level education wasn't available until 1996, brought in by Labour, and subsequently abolished by Fianna Fail in 2009.

Thanks, I stand corrected Blanch. Third level grants came, so, in 1968. They replaced the old Council University scholarships which were much fewer in number.

diomed

PMBC wrote: »

Thanks, I stand corrected Blanch. Third level grants came, so, in 1968. They replaced the old Council University scholarships which were much fewer in number.

There were County Council scholarships for secondary school also, very few.

PMBC

Were they before the free secondary education?
I thought they were a good number going - particularly since I got one. All the s**t that came out about the Christian Brothers. My teacher took about ten of us a few nights a week and I think most of us won. He prepared his own notes and copied them on a Gestetner. Lovely man; unfortunately some of his fellow brothers let him down.

topcatcbr

_Brian wrote: »

I really hate the whole self employed get no support.

It's a personal decision to go down this route rather than traditional employment, if your chosen field doesn't provide for sending your children to college then rethink your choices, but it's not right to have at low paid workers availing of supports.

It may be the parents decision. However this has little to offer the student. They are disadvantaged due to decision of their parents.

topcatcbr

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a separate discussion and a separate argument. All I am doing is correcting the misleading statement below:



That simply isn't true, no matter how many times it is repeated on social media.

topcatcbr wrote: »

During the benchmarking just before the crash. Management got increase of approx 11% and got cuts of approx 8-9% while the lower paid got an increase of 4% during benchmarking and got pay cuts of approx 7% not including the pension levy.

With this in mind the lower paid got hit more.

Geuze

PMBC wrote: »

Free secondary came about 63 - I know cos I got a Council school around same time. Free third level came about 68.

1967 = free second level

1996 = third level fees abolished

Geuze

_Brian wrote: »

I really hate the whole self employed get no support.

Self-employed are entitled to JSA "dole", same as anybody else.

The lazy media suggests otherwise.

Stonedpilot

Call centre workers. All banks and biggest websites in the World at operational level with the public are call centres.
Dealing with and listening to a hostile impatient public who have been screwed over by a multi billion euro corporation/bank one more time. all for €9-13 an hour.

blanch152

topcatcbr wrote: »

With this in mind the lower paid got hit more.

(1) There was no benchmarking just before the crash - it was 2002.

(2) There were increases of 9% for the lower paid in that Benchmarking Report, not 4% as you say

(3) The lower paid did not get cut by 7% (excluding the pension levy), it was less than that.

(4) Some of the higher paid got hit by 20%, not 8-9%.

Here are some links:

https://www.rte.ie/documents/news/publicservicepaycommissionmay2017.pdf

" The ratio of earnings of those in the
90th percentile compared to the 10th percentile in the
private sector was 6.9 compared to 3.6 in the public
service"

So pay is much more equal in the public sector.

"Public service earnings (net of PRD) saw larger decreases
in average earnings than the private sector. Public
service earnings levels in 2016 were 8% lower than
in 2008"

Public servants got hit more than private sector employees.

" Public service earnings,
net of PRD, increased in the 10th percentile, all
other percentiles have seen a decline in earnings.
The changes to public service earnings show the
progressive nature of the public pay reductions over
the period, with the highest percentiles experiencing
the largest reductions and the lower percentiles
seeing the smallest reduction"

Oh, the public service pay commission agrees with me that the higher paid took the bigger hit. Furthermore:

" By 2014 this gap had declined, the 10th
percentile had a public service earnings premium
of 15% and the 90th percentile had a discount of
13%"


Oh look, the lower paid public servants earn 15% more than the private sector, while the higher paid public servants earn 13% less than the private sector.

If you want to find inequalities, look at the private sector. If you wonder why senior management in the public sector appears incompetent at times, look at how they are paid less than the private sector.

topcatcbr

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) There was no benchmarking just before the crash - it was 2002.

(2) There were increases of 9% for the lower paid in that Benchmarking Report, not 4% as you say

(3) The lower paid did not get cut by 7% (excluding the pension levy), it was less than that.

(4) Some of the higher paid got hit by 20%, not 8-9%.

The benchmarking was implemented in 2005. I was there. I remember it. I got 4% middle management got 7% and my Boss got 14%. I know this.

http://www.ictu.ie/press/2003/10/03/benchmarking-faq/

Glenster

topcatcbr wrote: »

The benchmarking was implemented in 2005. I was there. I remember it. I got 4% middle management got 7% and my Boss got 14%. I know this.

http://www.ictu.ie/press/2003/10/03/benchmarking-faq/

Too much for all of you in any case.

Should have fired you all and started fresh with less lazy b*stards.

Jurgen Klopp

Amazed only one post so far for Carers, especially full time, think it's only like €209 a week for a full time carer for 1 person

You can work 15 hours a week, but depending on the wage it can effect

What sickens me more is if say you are under 66 and are a full time carer for 2 people say both your parents are ill, you only get €313 FOR BOTH

Imagine how much it would cost the Government if all these people needed to be put into full time care homes and believe me if they outsourced to Care Agencies they'd pay through the hoop altogether

Jurgen Klopp

Another one is those working with adults with intellectual disabilities, you'd be shocked at the amount of physical violence and injury risk that can happen if a patient has an episode

Alongside the mental challenges that may be posed in such an environment

topcatcbr

Glenster wrote: »

Too much for all of you in any case.

Should have fired you all and started fresh with less lazy b*stards.

I wish they did.

koumi

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Another one is those working with adults with intellectual disabilities, you'd be shocked at the amount of physical violence and injury risk that can happen if a patient has an episode

Alongside the mental challenges that may be posed in such an environment

I worked with children with disabilities back in the day. I can honestly say that I wasn't in it for the money and I suspect most people who do it for the love of the job, as it happens I was on a decent pay roll at the time, comparatively speaking.

andekwarhola

valoren wrote: »

If you had 5 nurses and 4 earned 25k but one earned 50k, then the average pay would be 30k. Averages always skew towards the higher earners.

Think median is probably a better way to calculate it.

On the teacher thing, I don't think it's a matter or it being stresssful or the holidays or whatever. It's important. You are the first port of call in a child's education not to mention being a quasi-counsellor and carer for young kids. I think it should be a decently paid career albeit with a lot of regulation to ensure that teaching is of a high standard.

blanch152

topcatcbr wrote: »

The benchmarking was implemented in 2005. I was there. I remember it. I got 4% middle management got 7% and my Boss got 14%. I know this.

http://www.ictu.ie/press/2003/10/03/benchmarking-faq/

The Benchmarking Report was published in June 2002. You can get a copy of it here:


http://benchmarking.gov.ie/Reports.aspx

The second report in 2007 was never implemented - gets mentioned in the Public Service Pay Commission Report.

The lowest paid civil service grade - Clerical Officers/Service Officers - got 8.5% not 4% as you claim.

Principal Officer - the highest civil service grade considered - got 11.7%, not 14% as you claim (though one of the middle management grades below got 13.8%).

The only area where the increases at the bottom were 4% was the Army and the Prison Service. Two things to note about these: they had secured significant pay increases in the period before the benchmarking report and secondly, the Defence Forces in particular have been identified in yesterday's Public Service Pay Commission as having recruitment difficulties now.

Sam Kade

Tell me how wrote: »

Nurses. Full stop.
It's incredible the difference they make to a person's life and the responsibility they have in critical situations.

Fcuk off with your full stop. What do people need more than health care? Food, farmers are more under paid than nurses.

topcatcbr

blanch152 wrote: »

The Benchmarking Report was published in June 2002. You can get a copy of it here:


http://benchmarking.gov.ie/Reports.aspx

The second report in 2007 was never implemented - gets mentioned in the Public Service Pay Commission Report.

The lowest paid civil service grade - Clerical Officers/Service Officers - got 8.5% not 4% as you claim.

Principal Officer - the highest civil service grade considered - got 11.7%, not 14% as you claim (though one of the middle management grades below got 13.8%).

The only area where the increases at the bottom were 4% was the Army and the Prison Service. Two things to note about these: they had secured significant pay increases in the period before the benchmarking report and secondly, the Defence Forces in particular have been identified in yesterday's Public Service Pay Commission as having recruitment difficulties now.

If you read my previous posts. I said im army. Thats how i opened my conversation saying how the army is having difficult time recruiting and retaining staff. I myself am leaving this summer.
The only thing that kept us pre 1994 staff in was the pension. Thats no longer available to new entrants.
We are lower paid public sector and got 4% just as i said.

My boss got 14% as he was an architect and got additional over the 11% that regular officers got due to his tech status.

And senior NCOs got 9%

Im an Architectural tech and got 4% along with the regular service other ranks.

Everything i said was true. And i have now explained that. If you want to continue to troll go ahead but i wont be responding.

Glenster

topcatcbr wrote: »

If you want to continue to troll go ahead but i wont be responding.

That's a bit harsh, you didn't make it clear that you were outside standard benchmarking process and made it seem as though the 4% that you got was typical across the PS.

Confusing at best.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Glenster

Sam Kade wrote: »

farmers are more under paid than nurses.

Anyone else who has a job and also draws the dole is called a sponge and a cheat.

Farmers do it and they're heroes. F*ck farmers.

Sunny Disposition

Glenster wrote: »

Anyone else who has a job and also draws the dole is called a sponge and a cheat.

Farmers do it and they're heroes. F*ck farmers.

Eh? Who says farmers are heroes if they cheat social welfare? I don't think many people would say that, farmers or otherwise.

Glenster

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Eh? Who says farmers are heroes if they cheat social welfare? I don't think many people would say that, farmers or otherwise.

I'm talking about farmers dole.

Sam Kade

Glenster wrote: »

Anyone else who has a job and also draws the dole is called a sponge and a cheat.

Farmers do it and they're heroes. F*ck farmers.

It isnt dole it's a subsidy, how do you think you can buy food so cheap but don't let that stop you from slating farmers.

blanch152

topcatcbr wrote: »

If you read my previous posts. I said im army. Thats how i opened my conversation saying how the army is having difficult time recruiting and retaining staff. I myself am leaving this summer.
The only thing that kept us pre 1994 staff in was the pension. Thats no longer available to new entrants.
We are lower paid public sector and got 4% just as i said.

My boss got 14% as he was an architect and got additional over the 11% that regular officers got due to his tech status.

And senior NCOs got 9%

Im an Architectural tech and got 4% along with the regular service other ranks.

Everything i said was true. And i have now explained that. If you want to continue to troll go ahead but i wont be responding.

I missed your post where you said you were army. In responding to you, I provided links to benchmarking reports and to the public service pay commission report of yesterday to back up my figures, so I wasn't making up things to provoke a response or trolling.

I also said that the army were the exception to the rule, and I pointed out some of the reasons why. A further reason for the Army suffering at the hands of the establishment at the time was the Army deafness scandal.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/army-deafness-claims-may-cost-1bn-after-new-ruling-1.175525

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/nation-shell-shocked-by-soldiers-deafness-claims-1290212.html

"The chairman of the Dail's public accounts committee, Jim Mitchell, declared: "Let's be blunt about this. Anybody who thinks this is not a scam must be blind. We are a laughing stock among defence forces around the world."

There is no doubt that this caused reputational damage to the Army and would have affected some of the considerations of the Benchmarking Body which were working at the same time. Unfortunate for people like yourself that this legacy has carried on for so long and you have consequently suffered low pay. This is also noted in the Public Service Pay Commission Report yesterday.

At the same time, there have long been arguments that by international standards our Army is relatively well-paid.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-troops-salaries-are-the-envy-of-uk-soldiers-26793846.html

"Salaries for Irish soldiers are significantly higher than for their British counterparts. Privates in the Defence Forces earn around €36,000 a year, compared to £17,265 (€20,216) for their equivalents in the British Army."

"The salary levels and foreign service allowances are also higher for Irish soldiers as they rise up the ranks. An Irish officer serving in Lebanon receives an operational allowance of €19,838 -- again more than twice the rate for British officers in Afghanistan"

While I do not necessarily subscribe to the argument that the Army are overpaid, this type of evidence makes it harder for the Army to secure pay increases.

On the general point of public service pay (and the Army remember is only a small part of the public service), there is no doubt now, based on the recent research that it is well-paid at the bottom and less well-paid at the top compared to the private sector.

Glenster

Sam Kade wrote: »

It isnt dole it's a subsidy, how do you think you can buy food so cheap but don't let that stop you from slating farmers.

Logicfail

The price of food wont change if we stop subsidising farmers. The reason we subsidise them is because the imported food is so much cheaper.

KilOit

By a country mile, nurses. Although nurses have great career paths and if they put in the effort can become cnm1 in very short space of time bumping their salary up to mid 30s starting out to late 40s within a couple of years. A retiring nurse can get up to 50 -60k in a specialist area but starting out they're on awful money for the work they have to do. They do get paid on their placement now though when training in 3rd 4th year

OldNotWIse

Tell me how wrote: »

So you think truck drivers should be paid more because of safety risks but think nurses are a protected group?

am related to a truck driver and I don't envy him. Wages have been slashed in the last decade because the market is becoming saturated with other Europeans willing to come in and do the work for 9 or 10 euro an hour. The hours are really unsociable and drivers are basically on call all the time. They have to arrange and pay for their own CPD and often get stranded somewhere in the back ar*e of nowehere because the company has sent them over their legal limit of hours and they need to pull in and rest at their own expense. Nobody is saying that it is nurses versus truck drivers.

I don't for a minute think that truck drivers should be paid more than nurses but I too have kind of had it with the feckin Florence nightingale obsession in this country. Agency nurses are well compensated- nursing posts should be permanent for the good of patients. Stability is key.

Pure tashte

Glenster wrote: »

Logicfail

The price of food wont change if we stop subsidising farmers. The reason we subsidise them is because the imported food is so much cheaper.

A common gripe among farmers is that they do not get paid fairly by supermarkets, etc. for their produce.

Now, seeing as though there is significance put on Irish grown produce being of a much higher standard than imported stuff, would it not be fair to say that government regulation be put in place so that the farmer gets paid fairly for his/her produce, and thus negate the need for subsidies for farmers?

Obviously it's much cheaper to import loads of lesser quality food from Asia and South America, but people really do but into the idea that Irish meat and dairy is far superior.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Glenster wrote: »

Anyone else who has a job and also draws the dole is called a sponge and a cheat.

Farmers do it and they're heroes. F*ck farmers.

What an ignorant piece of drivel.

Glenster

Pure tashte wrote: »

A common gripe among farmers is that they do not get paid fairly by supermarkets, etc. for their produce.

Now, seeing as though there is significance put on Irish grown produce being of a much higher standard than imported stuff, would it not be fair to say that government regulation be put in place so that the farmer gets paid fairly for his/her produce, and thus negate the need for subsidies for farmers?

Obviously it's much cheaper to import loads of lesser quality food from Asia and South America, but people really do but into the idea that Irish meat and dairy is far superior.

Fairly.

I suppose that's it isn't it?

My job is making charm bracelets, but my purchasers aren't paying me a fair price. Can I have a subsidy?

And I don't think that something is nicer just because its Irish. Now I'd buy Irish but that's just to reduce the carbon footprint.