The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

tikkahunter

jm08 wrote: »

What kind of restrictions?

Have you ever worked in a job that has a union ? like lets just say Billy bricklayer that has worked for the corpo for years now has been happy tipping along patching up wrecked houses , building the odd little wall here and there for 40 k a year .Now they bring in Johnny the bricklayer who is going to start building houses but no way he will work for 40 k a year he wants 70k .So if the corpo give Johnny 70k (which they wont because of pay scales but lets just pretend here)then Billy will want parity but will not build houses as its not in his job description and he hasn't done that since he started in the corpo . So now what do the corpo do ? Bring in Johnny on 40 k and tell him to build a house? Because that is when the union will step in and say sorry Johnny can come in on 40 k but his job description will be the same as billys and billy does not build houses. Does Eoin not know this - like he wrote a book dont you know. You can find it in the fiction section in Easons , Its like Louise O Reilly talking about health and Pharma companies , both know very little about either but will just shout out what everyone wants to hear without actually knowing if it will work.

marieholmfan

This is classic - 'don't listen to the experts stuff' This kind of wilfull stupidity delivered Brexit and Trump.


Tikkahunter your opinion is worthless.


There is a such a thing as expertise, we know Eoin O'Broin has it and as presented here you don't.


It's pretty clear that FG want to remodel themselves after the English Tories as the 'stupid party' and as the below indicated there is no shortage of idiots in this country.

tikkahunter wrote: »

Have you ever worked in a job that has a union ? like lets just say Billy bricklayer that has worked for the corpo for years now has been happy tipping along patching up wrecked houses , building the odd little wall here and there for 40 k a year .Now they bring in Johnny the bricklayer who is going to start building houses but no way he will work for 40 k a year he wants 70k .So if the corpo give Johnny 70k (which they wont because of pay scales but lets just pretend here)then Billy will want parity but will not build houses as its not in his job description and he hasn't done that since he started in the corpo . So now what do the corpo do ? Bring in Johnny on 40 k and tell him to build a house? Because that is when the union will step in and say sorry Johnny can come in on 40 k but his job description will be the same as billys and billy does not build houses. Does Eoin not know this - like he wrote a book dont you know. You can find it in the fiction section in Easons , Its like Louise O Reilly talking about health and Pharma companies , both know very little about either but will just shout out what everyone wants to hear without actually knowing if it will work.

tikkahunter

marieholmfan wrote: »

This is classic - 'don't listen to the experts stuff' This kind of wilfull stupidity delivered Brexit and Trump.


Tikkahunter your opinion is worthless.


There is a such a thing as expertise, we know Eoin O'Broin has it and as presented here you don't.


It's pretty clear that FG want to remodel themselves after the English Tories as the 'stupid party' and as the below indicated there is no shortage of idiots in this country.

Touch a nerve did I . What i said above is factual and and is what happens when companies try to bring people in on different pay scales and on different terms . So I don’t see how that is worthless, it’s giving information to someone who might not have any experience in the area .

McMurphy

tikkahunter wrote: »

Touch a nerve did I . What i said above is factual and and is what happens when companies try to bring people in on different pay scales and on different terms . So I don’t see how that is worthless, it’s giving information to someone who might not have any experience in the area .

Two words.

Irish. Water.

jm08

tikkahunter wrote: »

Have you ever worked in a job that has a union ? like lets just say Billy bricklayer that has worked for the corpo for years now has been happy tipping along patching up wrecked houses , building the odd little wall here and there for 40 k a year .Now they bring in Johnny the bricklayer who is going to start building houses but no way he will work for 40 k a year he wants 70k .So if the corpo give Johnny 70k (which they wont because of pay scales but lets just pretend here)then Billy will want parity but will not build houses as its not in his job description and he hasn't done that since he started in the corpo . So now what do the corpo do ? Bring in Johnny on 40 k and tell him to build a house? Because that is when the union will step in and say sorry Johnny can come in on 40 k but his job description will be the same as billys and billy does not build houses. Does Eoin not know this - like he wrote a book dont you know. You can find it in the fiction section in Easons , Its like Louise O Reilly talking about health and Pharma companies , both know very little about either but will just shout out what everyone wants to hear without actually knowing if it will work.

Except the way it would work would be that the Council would be the developer and do exactly what developers do - use contractors to build the houses. Thats what Dublin Corporation used to do back in the day it built social housing. For example, Dublin Corporation built some houses down in Ringsend (an award winning development) which were designed by Ruairi Quinn's architectural practice before he became a politician. As far as I know, Ruairi Quinn was never directly employed by Dublin Corporation. How did he get around the union situation then and design a housing scheme for them?

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Except the way it would work would be that the Council would be the developer and do exactly what developers do - use contractors to build the houses. Thats what Dublin Corporation used to do back in the day it built social housing. For example, Dublin Corporation built some houses down in Ringsend (an award winning development) which were designed by Ruairi Quinn's architectural practice before he became a politician. As far as I know, Ruairi Quinn was never directly employed by Dublin Corporation. How did he get around the union situation then and design a housing scheme for them?

That was a long time ago, before the changes won by the unions. Here is what Forsa say about it:

https://www.forsa.ie/other-benefits/pay-and-conditions/national-agreements/

"Despite management attempts to water them down substantially, the PSSA retains all the outsourcing protections that unions won in negotiations that led to the earlier Croke Park (2010) and Haddington Road (2013) agreements."

https://www.forsa.ie/building-momentum-a-new-public-sector-agreement-faqs/

"Will the proposals lead to more outsourcing?
Strong protections against outsourcing remain in place. The management side initially sought measures that would have increased the risk of outsourcing and privatisation. But the final text retains existing safeguards. These include requirements on employers to present a ‘business case’ if they want to outsource a service or part of a service, and a requirement to consult with staff representatives. Crucially, employers are forbidden to include labour costs in any business case.

This is a substantial safeguard because discarding the labour cost provision would effectively mean the majority of business cases would support outsourcing and lead to the privatisation of public services – on the basis of minimum wage and rock-bottom workers’ rights – regardless of the impact on service quality and worker protections."

Unfortunately, tikkahunter is the one with the expertise on this issue, Eoin O'Broin is the fool whose opinion is worthless.

If any of you want to debate the details of the provisions on outsourcing, I am happy to do so, but you would want to know what you are talking about.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

That was a long time ago, before the changes won by the unions. Here is what Forsa say about it:

https://www.forsa.ie/other-benefits/pay-and-conditions/national-agreements/

"Despite management attempts to water them down substantially, the PSSA retains all the outsourcing protections that unions won in negotiations that led to the earlier Croke Park (2010) and Haddington Road (2013) agreements."

https://www.forsa.ie/building-momentum-a-new-public-sector-agreement-faqs/

"Will the proposals lead to more outsourcing?
Strong protections against outsourcing remain in place. The management side initially sought measures that would have increased the risk of outsourcing and privatisation. But the final text retains existing safeguards. These include requirements on employers to present a ‘business case’ if they want to outsource a service or part of a service, and a requirement to consult with staff representatives. Crucially, employers are forbidden to include labour costs in any business case.

This is a substantial safeguard because discarding the labour cost provision would effectively mean the majority of business cases would support outsourcing and lead to the privatisation of public services – on the basis of minimum wage and rock-bottom workers’ rights – regardless of the impact on service quality and worker protections."

Unfortunately, tikkahunter is the one with the expertise on this issue, Eoin O'Broin is the fool whose opinion is worthless.

If any of you want to debate the details of the provisions on outsourcing, I am happy to do so, but you would want to know what you are talking about.

They are not outsourcing something that they are now doing. That is to protect existing jobs - i.e., if for example, Councils are employing people to do maintainenance on houses, they would have to present a good case as to why it would be outsourced and if it is, that the company that it outsources are paying union rates (if these rates actually exist).


Seriously, unions would jump at the chance of not having to deal with developers/builders who notoriously try every trick in the book to pay their workers as little as possible.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

They are not outsourcing something that they are now doing. That is to protect existing jobs - i.e., if for example, Councils are employing people to do maintainenance on houses, they would have to present a good case as to why it would be outsourced and if it is, that the company that it outsources are not paying union rates (if these rates actually exist).


Seriously, unions would jump at the chance of not having to deal with developers/builders who notoriously try every trick in the book to pay their workers as little as possible.

If that is the case, you will be able to point to the relevant clauses in the national pay agreements that allow for outsourcing something that they are not doing.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

If that is the case, you will be able to point to the relevant clauses in the national pay agreements that allow for outsourcing something that they are not doing.

No, but I can point to how it works in reality - the building of Hospitals, Schools etc. are all outsourced. The Dept. of Health/Education do not directly employ builders for these.

edit: and this is how The Swan Leisure Centre was built in 2010 by Dublin City Council.
https://www.cladglobal.com/CLADnews/architecture-design/Swan-Leisure-officially-opens-in-Dublin/232923?source=news

James Brown

tikkahunter wrote: »

Have you ever worked in a job that has a union ? like lets just say Billy bricklayer that has worked for the corpo for years now has been happy tipping along patching up wrecked houses , building the odd little wall here and there for 40 k a year .Now they bring in Johnny the bricklayer who is going to start building houses but no way he will work for 40 k a year he wants 70k .So if the corpo give Johnny 70k (which they wont because of pay scales but lets just pretend here)then Billy will want parity but will not build houses as its not in his job description and he hasn't done that since he started in the corpo . So now what do the corpo do ? Bring in Johnny on 40 k and tell him to build a house? Because that is when the union will step in and say sorry Johnny can come in on 40 k but his job description will be the same as billys and billy does not build houses. Does Eoin not know this - like he wrote a book dont you know. You can find it in the fiction section in Easons , Its like Louise O Reilly talking about health and Pharma companies , both know very little about either but will just shout out what everyone wants to hear without actually knowing if it will work.

This is not reality.
Local Authorities do not keep tradesmen on salary.
Council employees do not build houses.
An inspector would usually be a tradesman and he or she might carry out something very minor but generally a private contractor is hired through a tendering process to be added to the council list of trusted and reliable trades people.
How it works is you as a tenant put in a request. An inspector calls out and makes an assessment. A contractor is hired.

Building a house would be a firm/developer hired to build houses.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

This is not reality.
Local Authorities do not keep tradesmen on salary.
.

Deleted User wrote: »

i literally know blocklayers,carpenters,plumbers in the council

Which is true and which is false?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Which is true and which is false?

The inspectors I know are Trades people. It's in the rest of my comment you neglected to quote.

In any case are we talking about building houses or not?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Which is true and which is false?

WTF?

THey aren't employed specifically for their trade.

I employ somebody whose degree is in computer programming. He doesn't do computer programming for me though, he is emplyed because of his general IT knowledge.

Think outside the auld box a bit blanch.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

The inspectors I know are Trades people. It's in the rest of my comment you neglected to quote.

You made a statement that there are no tradespeople employed by the council.

Both Blaaz and I are personally aware that there are tradespeople employed by the councils and are working on their trade for the council. We differ on the mix and on the ability to build housing, and on whether contracting out is allowed, but we are at least starting from a position of sharing some common factual ground.

Do you accept the basic fact that councils employ tradesmen?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

WTF?

THey aren't employed specifically for their trade.

I employ somebody whose degree is in computer programming. He doesn't do computer programming for me though, he is emplyed because of his general IT knowledge.

Think outside the auld box a bit blanch.

So carpenters repairing social housing are not employed specifically for their trade?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So carpenters repairing social housing are not employed specifically for their trade?

Some may be, if there is enough carpentry work. You are immediately more employable in maintenance if you have a trade, for obvious reasons.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Some may be, if there is enough carpentry work. You are immediately more employable in maintenance if you have a trade, for obvious reasons.

So the plumbers fixing the leaks in social housing aren't employed because they are plumbers doing plumbing work?

Edit: Are you suggesting that these plumbers employed in the Corpo allow carpenters to do plumbing work?

tikkahunter

FrancieBrady wrote: »

WTF?

THey aren't employed specifically for their trade.

I employ somebody whose degree is in computer programming. He doesn't do computer programming for me though, he is emplyed because of his general IT knowledge.

Think outside the auld box a bit blanch.

Your mixing up two things there Francie , a degree and a trade . I have both . I am employed as a tradesman as is everyone in my group . You cant work in our group if you dont have a trade - simple protects trade jobs against yellow pack workers.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So the plumbers fixing the leaks in social housing aren't employed because they are plumbers doing plumbing work?

Edit: Are you suggesting that these plumbers employed in the Corpo allow carpenters to do plumbing work?

Plumbing is a specialisation mostly. But not all of it. I have seen general maintenance staff carry out basic plumbing if the need arises.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You made a statement that there are no tradespeople employed by the council.

Both Blaaz and I are personally aware that there are tradespeople employed by the councils and are working on their trade for the council. We differ on the mix and on the ability to build housing, and on whether contracting out is allowed, but we are at least starting from a position of sharing some common factual ground.

Do you accept the basic fact that councils employ tradesmen?

I'm not interested in your deflections and point scoring:

An inspector would usually be a tradesman and he or she might carry out something very minor but generally a private contractor is hired through a tendering process to be added to the council list of trusted and reliable trades people.
How it works is you as a tenant put in a request. An inspector calls out and makes an assessment. A contractor is hired.

The council does not have teams of plumbers/bricklayers/roofers sitting in huts drinking tea no, they do not.
They have inspectors who hold trades, are tradesmen, who...see above.

The Dail is made up of teachers and Doctors. Is the TUI giving out about teachers being asked govern? See how silly this is?

The idea that these people are asked to build houses or might be asked is a complete nonsense.
If ever you see pipe work being dug up you'll see contractor signs. Even the quango IW uses contractors.

Can we get back to building houses? Do you believe when we had houses built before we used council workers?

walshb

Nice to see SFs Chris McManus standing up for our country in the EU

Just not enough to vote against the Europeans trying to label our country a tax haven..

FrancieBrady

walshb wrote: »

Nice to see SFs Chris McManus standing up for our country in the EU

Just not enough to vote against the Europeans trying to label our country a tax haven..

Would be manners to link to what you are talking about.

walshb

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would be manners to link to what you are talking about.

Indo today page 2..

Can’t link it..one those paywalls..

No surprise anyway, they were hellbent against our country during the Apple tax debate...

Instead of fighting Ireland’s corner, as one would hope and expect from any Irish people, they sided with the Europeans..

All to be anti the government stance..

No difference here...

FrancieBrady

walshb wrote: »

Indo today page 2..

Can’t link it..one those paywalls..

No surprise anyway, they were hellbent against our country during the Apple tax debate...

Instead of fighting Ireland’s corner, as one would hope and expect from any Irish people, they sided with the Europeans..

All to be anti the government stance..

No difference here...

Or maybe it cannot be denied that we are a tax haven for some?

walshb

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Or maybe it cannot be denied that we are a tax haven for some?

As expected, Francie

Our country strongly arguing and providing a roubust defence against this “claim.”

But your usual Shinners defending here

Guaranteed if SF were in power here and defending the claim, you’d be slating anyone not defending it..

FrancieBrady

walshb wrote: »

As expected, Francie

Our country strongly arguing and providing a roubust defence against this “claim.”

But your usual Shinners defending here

Guaranteed if SF were in power here and defending the claim, you’d be slating anyone not defending it..

It's not a particularly 'Shinner' thing to say though is it?
Plenty are saying it across the EU and the world.

We are what we are.

CrazyFather1

If Sinn Fein go down this route they will lose thousands of votes. We cannot have Europe telling us what we can/can't do with our taxes. If anything Sinn Fein should be totally against Europe on this.

It doesn't matter what Apple or whoever pay in tax, if Europe are able to tell us what our tax rates etc are and Sinn Fein support that we are setting a terrible terrible precedent. What laws will we have to change next because Europe doesn't like them? do we expect Sinn Fein to bend over and agree to them as well?

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

Why did they abstain from this vote?

Quite how lads can claim us not to be a tax haven,while cheerleading spending millions to insure apple pays little to no tax here, by various dubious means is beyond me

We won our case in court, and rightly.

By we, I mean the people of this country..

Won our case about a very serious and potentially damaging claim against our revenue and tax..

Instead of our people all being on the same side to fight this, we had the usual anti govt brigade stirring Sh1t against our country..

But it is no surprise. It really does come across that SF have no real policies other than “whatever our opponents back and stand for and fight for, just go the opposite way.”

walshb

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

If Sinn Fein go down this route they will lose thousands of votes. We cannot have Europe telling us what we can/can't do with our taxes. If anything Sinn Fein should be totally against Europe on this.

It doesn't matter what Apple or whoever pay in tax, if Europe are able to tell us what our tax rates etc are and Sinn Fein support that we are setting a terrible terrible precedent. What laws will we have to change next because Europe doesn't like them? do we expect Sinn Fein to bend over and agree to them as well?

SF don’t give a toss

If it is going against our systems and Govt, they are happy

They don’t recognize our country, anyway..

CrazyFather1

Deleted User wrote: »

Why did they abstain from this vote?

Quite how lads can claim us not to be a tax haven,while cheerleading spending millions to insure apple pays little to no tax here, by various dubious means is beyond me


Its pure wrong to collect high tax from.the citizens,then to use that money to ensure corporations dont pay tax,its peak capitalism

If we are/ are not a tax haven that is our choice. Not Europes. A lot of people in Ireland make a lot of money out of these companies.

Are you saying we should let Europe tell us what we can agree with companies moving to Ireland? that is a very slippery slope which ends up in mass unemployment in Ireland.