FF/FG/Green Government - Part 3 - Threadbanned User List in OP

I wouldn't pay more for a house that looked like a drug lord used to live there, would you? 😁

Funny stuff. So you shut down the commercial life of the country, no more growth in taxes, so how will you pay for all those houses which won't be needed because people will be emigrating because no new jobs because no more commercial construction.

You can't just shut down all commercial development overnight, we don't live in a 1930s command economy.

Both are very easy to do? No, they are not. They are two very simplistic ideas that take no account of real economic conditions, the law, and unexpected and unforeseen complications.

(1) Offering significantly higher wages to construction workers to hire them may not work or have unforeseen consequences. For example, signficantly higher wages may mean that it could be cheaper for the taxpayer to buy houses on the open market than to build them themselves. Secondly, you assume that the significantly higher wages would not be outbid by their existing employers. Thirdly, you assume that the under-the-counter and nixer cultures have been eliminated from the private sector meaning the public sector only needs to compete on wages.

(2) Refusing permission for commencement works on construction that has already received planning permission would open the State to compensation claims from private companies. Furthermore, as I said already, where will people work? What about our tourism industry which is screaming for more hotel rooms which you want to block.

Simplistic solutions to complicated problems just don't work.

On what basis?

Thats a particularly low quality reply even from you, who ignores every post in this thread that replies to you with data when they prove your points (very frequently) completely wrong.

The idea that the government should refrain from hiring construction workers to build houses during a time of the worst housing crisis in the history of the state because of "potential unforeseen consequences" is hilarious. What are the unforseen consequences of letting the housing crisis continue indefinitely instead, as we've been doing? If the state offered €20,000 over the industry standard for twenty housand construction workers on a 3 year contract we'd be out the door with applications. And theres no problem doing that, the money is there to do so in the housing department's €1bn of unspent money last year. Better to use some of that money to get the thousands of Irish homeless children a roof over their heads than let it sit in a bank account losing value to inflation for years.

Any potential compensation claims from private companies will take years to resolve, and in the meantime the construction workers would actually be working on resolving the housing crisis if they were building homes instead of offices and hotels. And even if the state had to pay out compensation claims in future years on the matter - so what? We have plenty of money dedicated to the issue of housing currently not being spent, lets actually use it.

Refusing to implement any solutions to problems, instead claiming the housing crisis "can't be fixed over night" as FG have been doing since 2015 (!) now to justify inaction just doesn't work. A housing emergency requires emergency solutions.

That last sentence is laughable. The state will not under any circumstances be hiring builders as public servants. And even if they did, the rate of pay compared to people in entirely different jobs would be totally irrelevant.

Also you said above that it may become cheaper for councils to buy existing housing. Even so, they should not be allowed to do this as it reduces housing supply. FTBs have a hard enough time as it is without competing with councils for the few reasonably priced houses out there. Councils should be increasing the housing supply not reducing it.

"offer significantly higher wages to construction workers to hire them away from the private sector for 2-3 years"

and

"hiring construction workers to build houses during a time of the worst housing crisis in the history of the state"

Are both the exact same policy... I'm rather confused as to how you wouldn't see that. Is English not your first language?

The idea that you think civil service unions, and staff tenure, would have anything to do with the wages the state pays potential construction workers is also either hilariously dense or a very bad effort to muddy the waters, I'm not sure which.

Its this sort of desperately looking for excuses to avoid taking any action on the housing crisis that has FF&FG _combined_ polling at under half the support of SF with under 40s now.

If you asked Irish people would they rather be homeless or catch corona 99% would say they'd rather catch corona. Homelessness and the housing crisis are now a bigger threat to the quality of life of the people of Ireland than corona was. The state moved mountains to fight the corona crisis, it could just as easily do the same to fight the housing crisis, if it chose to. The fact it doesn't is down to deliberate FF&FG policy to maintain housing market prices at all costs, to the detriment of anyone whos not a homeowner.

What is the point of even discussing such a stupid notion. The state, councils, whatever will certainly not be taking on construction workers as direct employees. They will be engaging contractors.

"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."

Outsourcing in the public sector is not as easy as people think, as this statement from Forsa makes clear. Between EU procurement rules and agreements with trade unions, the simplistic idea put forward of "significantly higher wages to construction workers to hire them away from the private sector for 2-3 years" is being shown up for its clear naivety.

They're the exact same policy...

SIPTU ensure public sector workers are paid the same for doing the same role, in the same body. They do not ensure soldiers are paid the same as teachers. Or builders the same as office managers. Because that would be obviously ludicrous.

This is getting wildly off topic with you debating the specifics of just one option the government could take, but please do provide some actual factual evidence that the state would be unable to set up a new housing body, and hire new workers for it, at whatever wage they choose. Otherwise we can take it you have no idea what you're talking about.

Bricklayers in South Dublin County Council are paid on a scale starting at €656.39. All bricklayers start at the minimum.

So you are telling me that when South Dublin County Council pay over the odds for bricklayers, that their permanent bricklayers won't come looking for a raise? Now, clearly come back when you know what you are talking about.

P.S. I see the goalposts are heading for another fields as you talk about a "new housing body". Take your own advice from the last sentence.

The only reason the SDs existed was a personal beef between Shortall and Labour.

But what is it you want them to do? Permanent opposition like PBP etc? Never getting to change anything but never being held responsible for anything either - in other words a complete waste of a vote?

...its disturbing how slow we have been towards modular building, we have to move away from these costly and slower methods, you can clearly see that its to 'accommodate' particular interest groups!

Shortall left Labour because when she stood up to an incredibly corrupt FIne Gael minister (Reilly), she got zero support from her leader Gilmore who was also gorging himself in corruption and cronyism - he was instrumental in destroying Labour. Two disgusting and vile politicians, she was dead right. It wasn't a disagreement, it was honour. FG have zero honour. Zero.

Where is Reilly's 500m children hospital now? Due back in 2018.