Union Leaders Salaries Revealed

Sizzler · 23-10-2009 09:29AM #1

Er, well some of them!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1023/1224257294760.html

wrote:

THE LEADERS of the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) and of the public sector workers’ union, Impact, had the highest salaries of trade unions surveyed by The Irish Times .

Seven out of the 16 trade unions contacted refused to disclose the pay levels of their general secretaries.

John Carr of the INTO has a salary of €172,000 while Peter McLoone of Impact has a salary of €171,313. Impact salaries are linked to public sector grades and Mr McLoone’s salary is the equivalent of that of the Cork County Manager.

The INTO has 35,000 members. Impact has 65,000 members, about half of whom are in the health sector, and a third in local government.

The general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, David Begg, has a salary of €137,400. He earns an additional €27,700 from his work as a director of the Central Bank and as a Governor of the Irish Times trust. This work is done in his personal capacity, a spokesman said.

The general secretary of the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland, John White, has a salary of €144,000 while the general secretary of the Teachers’ Union of Ireland, Peter MacMenamin, is paid according to a grade system linked to Civil Service grades that sets his salary at between €131,748 and €150,712. The unions have 18,400 and 15,000 members respectively.

The three national executive officers of the State’s largest union, Siptu, each earned €124,895 in 2008. They are general president Jack O’Connor, vice-president Brendan Hayes, and general secretary Joe O’Flynn. The union has about 215,000 members.

The general secretary of the Civil and Public Services Union, Blair Horan, said he had a salary of “about €120,000”. The union has 14,000 members.

Seven trade unions did not disclose the salary levels of their general secretaries. These were: the Communications Workers’ Union (Steve Fitzpatrick); Mandate (John Douglas); the Irish Bank Officials’ Association (Larry Broderick); the TEEU (Owen Wills); the Irish Nurses’ Organisation (Liam Doran); the Public Service Executive Union (Tom Geraghty); and the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants (Dave Thomas).

The website of the Certification Officer in the UK shows that the salary of the IBOA general secretary, Mr Broderick, was €133,518 last year.

The annual return for the union available on the website says he also benefited from pension contributions of €46,731, and car, bonus and VHI benefits that totalled a further €19,957. His total package was €200,206, according to the document. The IBOA has 21,776 members.

Ibec, the employers’ organisation, would not disclose the salary level of its director general Danny McCoy.

While I don't begrudge anybody their salary as invariably most people have to earn it, my observations on the above are that these guys are grossly overpaid for what they actually do.Couple that against the landscape of the people that they are representing and it makes it all the more gauling. You have Peter McLoone banging on about the hardship of his members on €30k a year while hes creaming in €170K+ a year :eek: What does he know about hardship

If he is so concerned why doesnt he take a 50% pay cut and reduce his membership fees for the people who most need it, the people bankrolling his salary!

The most startling thing for me from the above is the 3 main people in SIPTU all earn identical salaries, just shy of €125k each ! Nice. How do they come up with such figures? Are SIPTU members entitled to vote on this

I wonder how there members would vote on it if it was put to them...

Rujib1 · 23-10-2009 09:33AM

The local area reps of SIPTU are not exactly on the bread line either :cool: It's a cushy number, oh ...... and the expenses ........ and the milage ....... :P:P:P

mikemac · 23-10-2009 09:36AM

If they're losing tens of thousands of members to unemployment then eventually they'll have to take a cut as union subs decrease.

Though I think I read somewhere unemployed members can pay a reduced subscription if they wish. I probably read that here, not sure

Rujib1 · 23-10-2009 09:37AM

Sizzler wrote: »

Er, well some of them!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1023/1224257294760.html

While I don't begrudge anybody their salary as invariably most people have to earn it, my observations on the above are that these guys are grossly overpaid for what they actually do.Couple that against the landscape of the people that they are representing and it makes it all the more gauling. You have Peter McLoone banging on about the hardship of his members on €30k a year while hes creaming in €170K+ a year :eek: What does he know about hardship If he is so concerned why doesnt he take a 50% pay cut and reduce his membership fees for the people who most need it, the people bankrolling his salary!

The most startling thing for me from the above is the 3 main people in SIPTU all earn identical salaries, just shy of €125k each ! Nice. How do they come up with such figures? Are SIPTU members entitled to vote on this
I wonder how there members would vote on it if it was put to them...

Suppose the principle of bringing down pay for senior public servants, would automatically mean that the gaffers in the unions with their pay directly linked to the self same senior public servants would have to take a similar cut:):) Now, now that wouldn't do at all, would it.
Lets get the marching boots out and fight for the cushy lives of public servants, civil servants, union bosses, etc, etc. It's your civic duty you know.

BennyLava · 23-10-2009 12:43PM

It's also interesting how the head of Impact was on the board of FAS, a more reputable organization you'll never find :rolleyes:,

All pigs with their heads in the trough, if ordinary PS workers think benchmarking was negotiated for them, these figures might give them pause for thought, benchmarking benefits those at the top allot more than ordinary workers

JonathanAnon · 23-10-2009 12:58PM

This issue has always got to me. They should accept the average wage of the people they represent and no more.

And secondly, all the money they are paid and not one of them would get a shave.

Tipp Man · 23-10-2009 01:09PM

Why oh why is this not getting enough attention from the media, from people interviewing them AND from their own members. Its a disgrace to hear them talking about FATCAT salaries when then themselves are some of the highest paid people in the country, how can they honestly have the sheer brass neck to come on TV calling for tax increases, They are the biggest hipocrits in this country, worse than FF

These fu##ers make my blood boil

Sizzler · 23-10-2009 01:17PM

Have a look at their profiles on the SIPTU website and the stellar CV's they have in the world of commerce -

Joe O'Flynn

http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/Profiles/JoeOFlynn/

Been in SIPTU since he was 22. A mechanic before that.

Brendan Hayes

http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/Profiles/BrendanHayes/

Has been involved in unions all his life.

Jack O'Connor

http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/Profiles/JackOConnor/

Employed in agriculture, local council and construction before going full time into unions.

If SIPTU went belly up next week where else would these lads get a €125k salary

The glaring deficiency of any of these men working outside the cushy bosom of the unions is stark in the extreme. How they feel confident to speak on behalf of their members conditions is beyond me when not one of them appears to have actually drank from the same cup.

ejmaztec · 23-10-2009 01:43PM

They're all obviously so guilt-ridden at receiving such financial rewards, they must always feel the need to justify their existence, more often than not by going OTT, and being completely unrealistic, in representing their members' interests.

ParkRunner · 23-10-2009 05:44PM

In fairness you would be hard pushed to find an organisation in the private sector with responsibility for at least 14,000 members where their chief earns less than 150,000!

P. Breathnach · 23-10-2009 05:52PM

EF wrote: »

In fairness ...

Sorry, EF, you lost your audience by starting your post with those words.

BroomBurner · 23-10-2009 06:40PM

Thanks for posting those Sizzler, I will email my union rep on Monday and ask for the salaries of those at the top, as they were one of the groups not to disclose such information.

This will be before I make any decision on the ballots that are due out soon.

Top earners in the PS are earning way too much, and that includes these lads. I'm sorry, EF, I've no sympathy for them, they've been far too quiet for too long (i.e. not earning their wage).

irish_bob · 23-10-2009 07:44PM

the unions heads are worth every penny , despite all the facts to the contary , they have managed to ( albeit with bald faced lies , rank propoganda and sheer chutzpah ) potray the public sector as being victimized , underpaid and disproportionatley effected by the rescession

goebels didnt have **** on the likes of o,connor , begg , doran and mcloone

ParkRunner · 24-10-2009 08:39AM

BroomBurner wrote: »

Thanks for posting those Sizzler, I will email my union rep on Monday and ask for the salaries of those at the top, as they were one of the groups not to disclose such information.

This will be before I make any decision on the ballots that are due out soon.

Top earners in the PS are earning way too much, and that includes these lads. I'm sorry, EF, I've no sympathy for them, they've been far too quiet for too long (i.e. not earning their wage).

I agree with you to some extent. I dont think there is any chance of them giving an impassioned Jim Larkinesque rallying speech from a soapbox. At the rally back in February they were all dressed to the hilt and meticulously groomed for their big day out. It was more like a St. Patrick's day parade than a rally to defend workers rights and pay.

nesf · 24-10-2009 08:54AM

EF wrote: »

In fairness you would be hard pushed to find an organisation in the private sector with responsibility for at least 14,000 members where their chief earns less than 150,000!

Hmm, TDs represent about 3 times that or so. Should they be on better wages then?

Actually EF, on a serious note, I think it's a pointless comparison you're making. If you want to talk about size it'd be more accurate to talk about the size of the union staff and managing them. It doesn't bother me either way what these guys get paid, I ain't a member of their unions so I don't consider it my business. I do wonder though what their salaries would be if they were set by a ballot of the membership rather than by the union officials themselves.

The Volt · 24-10-2009 12:40PM

So when is the Irish times going to post the pay of the heads of Aer Lingus, Ryanair, IBEC etc etc etc etc etc etc? Once again it's singling the unions out as an easy target. Disappointed in the Times for publishing this.

BroomBurner · 24-10-2009 06:45PM

Voltwad wrote: »

So when is the Irish times going to post the pay of the heads of Aer Lingus, Ryanair, IBEC etc etc etc etc etc etc? Once again it's singling the unions out as an easy target. Disappointed in the Times for publishing this.

Private companies are not paid for by the State, so it's none of our business what their members are paid.

P. Breathnach · 24-10-2009 08:10PM

BroomBurner wrote: »

Private companies are not paid for by the State, so it's none of our business what their members are paid.

Neither are trade unions.

dvpower · 24-10-2009 08:51PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Neither are trade unions.

Some of the public sector trade unions have their leaders' pay linked to public sector pay (not to the pay of the members they represent but to the pay of senior public servants).

Its entirely up to the unions and their members to set their pay scales, but it does leave a bit of a credibility gap if they have lifestyles far out of line with those they represent; a bit like TDs really.

P. Breathnach · 24-10-2009 09:13PM

dvpower wrote: »

Some of the public sector trade unions have their leaders' pay linked to public sector pay (not to the pay of the members they represent but to the pay of senior public servants).

Its entirely up to the unions and their members to set their pay scales, but it does leave a bit of a credibility gap if they have lifestyles far out of line with those they represent; a bit like TDs really.

If, as BroomBurner says, it is none of our business how much the heads of major companies are paid because they are not paid by the government, the same argument should apply to the head honchos in trade unions.

In fact, the pay of trade union executives is not really a matter for public attention, because it is an arrangement between the members and themselves. It's internal business.

Bodies like Aer Lingus and Ryanair are more properly regarded as being in the public domain because they are public limited companies, with a effective standing invitation to members of the public to purchase shares.

FlutterinBantam · 24-10-2009 09:18PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If, as BroomBurner says, it is none of our business how much the heads of major companies are paid because they are not paid by the government, the same argument should apply to the head honchos in trade unions.

In fact, the pay of trade union executives is not really a matter for public attention, because it is an arrangement between the members and themselves. It's internal business.:eek:

Bodies like Aer Lingus and Ryanair are more properly regarded as being in the public domain because they are public limited companies, with a effective standing invitation to members of the public to purchase shares.

John Q Taxpayer is perfectly entitled to know how much the remuneration of those involved in the "Social parternership" are pulling in I would opine, as are the taxpayers who are members of the Unions involved.

yoshytoshy · 24-10-2009 09:19PM

I find it worrying that the media are trying to point the finger at anyone in their way.
It's good that people know what the union leaders are paid ,but we shouldn't make ourselves (the public) so easy to read.

We all know what the right thing to do is ,we don't need to be told what to do.

dresden8 · 24-10-2009 09:37PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

John Q Taxpayer is perfectly entitled to know how much the remuneration of those involved in the "Social parternership" are pulling in I would opine, as are the taxpayers who are members of the Unions involved.

Agreed.

When are we going to find out how much the IBEC and ISME leadership are paid.

Does any of this money come from public sector organisations paid for from the public purse?

Why do IBEC and ISME not publish a list of their membership on their respective websites?

Why are these social partners shrouded in secrecy?

nesf · 24-10-2009 09:50PM

dresden8 wrote: »

Agreed.

When are we going to find out how much the IBEC and ISME leadership are paid.

Does any of this money come from public sector organisations paid for from the public purse?

Why do IBEC and ISME not publish a list of their membership on their respective websites?

Why are these social partners shrouded in secrecy?

Because professional bodies like IBEC and ISME have traditionally not been expected to release renumberation details? They're under no obligation to release said details. Are the unions required to do so for some reason?

nesf · 24-10-2009 09:51PM

yoshytoshy wrote: »

I find it worrying that the media are trying to point the finger at anyone in their way.
It's good that people know what the union leaders are paid ,but we shouldn't make ourselves (the public) so easy to read.

We all know what the right thing to do is ,we don't need to be told what to do.

What does this even mean?

yoshytoshy · 24-10-2009 10:04PM

nesf wrote: »

What does this even mean?

It was a post pointed at RTE and their own wage rates. I hope it's not just myself ,but RTE seem to be pointing at everyone in the public light except for themselves.

nesf · 24-10-2009 10:29PM

yoshytoshy wrote: »

It was a post pointed at RTE and their own wage rates. I hope it's not just myself ,but RTE seem to be pointing at everyone in the public light except for themselves.

But what has that got to do with anything? The union leaders are paid what they are paid. Throwing dirt around what other people are paid doesn't change it. I don't get this obsession with pointing out X or Y is paid more or less. It doesn't change anything.

P. Breathnach · 24-10-2009 10:34PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

John Q Taxpayer is perfectly entitled to know how much the remuneration of those involved in the "Social parternership" are pulling in I would opine, as are the taxpayers who are members of the Unions involved.

[Please, if you quote my words in an edited version, be so kind as to make that clear. You might say "emphasis and silly face added", or somesuch.]

I did say that that the members of a union have a legitimate interest in what their officials are paid. How they express that interest is their own business.

I don't think it is the business of any of the rest of us. The reactions of some people (including people posting here) suggests to me that the wish to know what they are paid is not driven by any noble motives.

Overheal · 24-10-2009 10:59PM

A Bank of America CEO makes whut?

In comparison, you're sweating balls over Pennies here.

dresden8 · 24-10-2009 11:00PM

nesf wrote: »

Because professional bodies like IBEC and ISME have traditionally not been expected to release renumberation details? They're under no obligation to release said details. Are the unions required to do so for some reason?

Are they receiving fees from public sector bodies like the ESB, I don't know.

If they are, they are receiving fees from the public sector and we deserve to know.

They are a vested interest.

We deserve to know what their interests are.

dresden8 · 24-10-2009 11:07PM

Oh look, they are.

The ESB, which is a member of IBEC, said it had complied with a national agreement which was in force.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0130/pay.html

IBEC members are paying increases to their own members while calling for the public sector to be screwed.

Surprise that.

nesf · 24-10-2009 11:12PM

dresden8 wrote: »

Oh look, they are.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0130/pay.html

IBEC members are paying increases to their own members while calling for the public sector to be screwed.

Surprise that.

If you're old enough you'll know why the ESB isn't fighting the unions there over the increments.

dresden8 · 24-10-2009 11:34PM

nesf wrote: »

If you're old enough you'll know why the ESB isn't fighting the unions there over the increments.

Indeed. Government minister agree that some of their troublesome employees should get their agreed pay increases, while some of their more agreeable employees get hit with levies.

What do you think that does to their agreeable employees?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0207/1233867925315.html

This issue is coming down to power.

Why are you surprised when some employees try to express their power?

Dyr · 24-10-2009 11:49PM

At least it will highlight that yer man begg is a director of the central bank..running with the hounds and sleeping with the foxes.

nesf · 24-10-2009 11:56PM

Bambi wrote: »

At least it will highlight that yer man begg is a director of the central bank..running with the hounds and sleeping with the foxes.

The Impact director was on the Fás board... Which wins I think.

Fulton Crown · 29-10-2009 12:09PM

Sizzler wrote: »

Have a look at their profiles on the SIPTU website and the stellar CV's they have in the world of commerce -

Joe O'Flynn

http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/Profiles/JoeOFlynn/

Been in SIPTU since he was 22. A mechanic before that.

Brendan Hayes

http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/Profiles/BrendanHayes/

Has been involved in unions all his life.

Jack O'Connor

http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/Profiles/JackOConnor/

Employed in agriculture, local council and construction before going full time into unions.

If SIPTU went belly up next week where else would these lads get a €125k salary

The glaring deficiency of any of these men working outside the cushy bosom of the unions is stark in the extreme. How they feel confident to speak on behalf of their members conditions is beyond me when not one of them appears to have actually drank from the same cup.

Look my friend ..time to get real.

Did you expect the Union Brass to be all well qualified acedemics with a balanced view on issues and the ability to see the "Bigger Picture".

The fact of the matter is that Union "Officials" are picked for their obdurate attitudes, thick brass necks and their ability to see only one side of the picture.

I have heard them described as "just one step up the evolution chain from the Rock Apes of Gibralter."

While I would not entirely agree with that..in fairness to the Rock Apes.

No hesitation ..any of them ..in imposing severe hardship on the most vilnerable sections of our community and like that sap Scargill over in the mainland destroying a complete industry.

Don't forget crocodile tears McLoone was the guy in Fas when the lads had the snouts and forequarters burried in the trough.

FTA69 · 29-10-2009 01:25PM

I remember when I was working in a prominent unionised hotel in Cork City where about half the staff were members of SIPTU. One evening SIPTU had some sort of dinner for local union organisers and staff etc, throughout the whole dinner (five course) they ordered countless bottles of the most expensive wine on the menu plus a bottle of whiskey afterward to finish it off. Here were we, union members, trying to encourage the rest of the staff to affiliate to the union in the face of a management trying to cut pay and conditions, and there was the union brass p*ssing away our dues on slap up banquets for themselves. The hotel staff were absolutely disgusted, and it completely undermined the shop steward and those of us trying to encourage unionisation. The leadership of SIPTU and a number of the other unions have simply become complacent and spoilt, often forgetting the purpose of a trade union to begin with.

However, a similar accusation could be leveled at the Labour Party, whose TDs get in excess of €100,000 a year; how could they possibly relate to their purported constituancy? Say what you like about the likes of Joe Higgins, but at least he isn't a complete bloody hypocrite.

BennyLava · 29-10-2009 02:12PM

Allot of people lost their heads during the "Celtic Tiger" years, it was just a big gravy train for those who got their snouts in

politicians, union management, bankers, developers etc

Think about it who negotiated benchmarking, they all benefited a hell of allot more that any of the ordinary workers, they are meant to be representing, funny that.

What gets allot of people now is that they weren't on the inside, its us ordinary workers who are having to pay for them creaming it in over the last 10 years

Sizzler · 29-10-2009 02:25PM

BroomBurner wrote: »

Thanks for posting those Sizzler, I will email my union rep on Monday and ask for the salaries of those at the top, as they were one of the groups not to disclose such information.

This will be before I make any decision on the ballots that are due out soon.

Top earners in the PS are earning way too much, and that includes these lads. I'm sorry, EF, I've no sympathy for them, they've been far too quiet for too long (i.e. not earning their wage).

How did you get on?

Taxipete29 · 29-10-2009 05:31PM

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Look my friend ..time to get real.

Did you expect the Union Brass to be all well qualified acedemics with a balanced view on issues and the ability to see the "Bigger Picture".

The fact of the matter is that Union "Officials" are picked for their obdurate attitudes, thick brass necks and their ability to see only one side of the picture.

I have heard them described as "just one step up the evolution chain from the Rock Apes of Gibralter."

While I would not entirely agree with that..in fairness to the Rock Apes.

No hesitation ..any of them ..in imposing severe hardship on the most vilnerable sections of our community and like that sap Scargill over in the mainland destroying a complete industry.

Don't forget crocodile tears McLoone was the guy in Fas when the lads had the snouts and forequarters burried in the trough.

The mainland?? Are you kidding??

Spoken like a true Thatcherite.

Union leaders are overpaid. They should not be sitting on the boards of any company or institution.I have said it before I think there is a need for reform within the union movement to bring it back to its core ideals. Which is workers rights. Unions should be about equality and fairness for all workers. That is not always about preserving the status quo or seeking to increase wages. Unions should seek to insure that any cuts which do have to be made hit harder at the top than they do at the bottom. The current leadership seem to miss these points.

One thing is for sure, the over-inflated wages of those at the top of the Unions has to go. The members can deal with that. They should demand leadership in all ways from their reps. This includes drawing a salary more in line with their members as opposed to those they negotiate with.

The public also needs to demand this of all our public representatives. Politicians etc all need to wake up. I cant understand that people talk here about counter-demos to the unions but wheres the demo against politicians expenses, FAS fraud, bonuses for health cheif execs?? Thats where we all need to concentrate our efforts. If there was less blatant double standards within the public sector then maybe the PS workers would except the inevitable cuts without so much fuss.

irish_bob · 29-10-2009 08:33PM

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Look my friend ..time to get real.

Did you expect the Union Brass to be all well qualified acedemics with a balanced view on issues and the ability to see the "Bigger Picture".

The fact of the matter is that Union "Officials" are picked for their obdurate attitudes, thick brass necks and their ability to see only one side of the picture.

I have heard them described as "just one step up the evolution chain from the Rock Apes of Gibralter."

While I would not entirely agree with that..in fairness to the Rock Apes.

No hesitation ..any of them ..in imposing severe hardship on the most vilnerable sections of our community and like that sap Scargill over in the mainland destroying a complete industry.

Don't forget crocodile tears McLoone was the guy in Fas when the lads had the snouts and forequarters burried in the trough.

+1

union heads are baschically spin doctors , proffesional liars and propogandists , i have to say they have done a masterfull job for those they represent this past few months , goebells wouldnt have **** on any of them

Fulton Crown · 30-10-2009 01:28PM

The mainland?? Are you kidding??

Ok Ok ..slip o the tongue ...meant the UK !

Spoken like a true Thatcherite.

Yes ! an happy to be one pal.

Union leaders are overpaid. They should not be sitting on the boards of any company or institution.I have said it before I think there is a need for reform within the union movement to bring it back to its core ideals. Which is workers rights. Unions should be about equality and fairness for all workers. That is not always about preserving the status quo or seeking to increase wages. Unions should seek to insure that any cuts which do have to be made hit harder at the top than they do at the bottom. The current leadership seem to miss these points.

Yes they are overpaid....you also say "unions should be about equality and fairness" why then should cuts hit harder at the top Hmmm ?

Taxipete29 · 30-10-2009 08:45PM

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Ok Ok ..slip o the tongue ...meant the UK !

Yes ! an happy to be one pal.

Yes they are overpaid....you also say "unions should be about equality and fairness" why then should cuts hit harder at the top Hmmm ?

If there are more cuts at the top it brings us towards a more equal society. There will always be disparity, but its the level of disparity that is the problem.

While I havent read it myself yet( its next in my pile to read) the book The Spirit level provides what I believe is some fascinating research into the inequalities in society.

nesf · 30-10-2009 10:22PM

Taxipete29 wrote: »

While I havent read it myself yet( its next in my pile to read) the book The Spirit level provides what I believe is some fascinating research into the inequalities in society.

Any idea what measure for inequality they use? The most common one in economics is the Gini coefficient and while it does provide a view on the issue it is beset by problems.

One of the core issues in inequality measures is this:

If you compare the top and bottom 10% of earners against each other you get a number you can use to reflect inequality in that society. The problem is that you get the same number for the following 2 countries (where income is expressed as a percentage of the average top 10% income).

Country A:

Top 10%: 100%
Middle 10%: 30%
Bottom 10%: 20%

Country B:

Top 10%: 100%
Middle 10%: 70%
Bottom 10%: 20%

Now, even at a glance it could be seen that we're looking at two very different countries yet simple measures of inequality will tend to miss this.

P. Breathnach · 30-10-2009 10:46PM

nesf wrote: »

Any idea what measure for inequality they use?

They use the ratio between the incomes of the top 20% and the bottom 20%, except where they are comparing states within the US, where they use the Gini coefficient because it is used within the US and is readily available data.

They say that they and other researchers also used other measures, but they rarely have a significant effect on results. [all on p. 18].

I add my own comment that some people who might, because of their political views, dislike the findings could choose to dispute the methodology.

nesf · 30-10-2009 10:49PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I add my own comment that some people who might, because of their political views, dislike the findings could choose to dispute the methodology.

It's contentious. Honestly, I don't find it at all surprising for there to be negative health outcomes associated with high degrees of inequality though I'd caution that such simple ratios are going to miss a lot of the subtleties going on. Far more of an issue I imagine in countries is the average level wealth. It doesn't really matter how equal a country is if the average person can't afford decent healthcare and education for their children. Equally I'd argue that inequality between the top and bottom 20% isn't as important as the actual level of wealth for the bottom 20%.

It's just back to the whole absolute versus relative poverty debate really and sides picking numbers that suit their argument best.

BroomBurner · 30-10-2009 10:59PM

Sizzler wrote: »

How did you get on?

Hmm. a bit fast, but slow, if you get me. They let me know what grade each full-time member of the union is paid at, and that they're linked to the public pay-scale. It would just depend then on how long they're there. Most of them are on secondment from the CS, so they are hit by the pension levy. They didn't supply any info with regards expenses, guess I would have to be more specific.

I'm still in two minds about which way to vote. On the one hand, I don't like striking, it's a pain and I don't agree with any kind of money-wasting, regardless of who it is (i.e. unions). On the other hand, I hate the fact that the private sector companies that were funded from my pension levy went on to award their wage increases with not a peep from IBEC, etc.

P. Breathnach · 30-10-2009 11:00PM

nesf wrote: »

It's contentious. Honestly, I don't find it at all surprising for there to be negative health outcomes associated with high degrees of inequality though I'd caution that such simple ratios are going to miss a lot of the subtleties going on. Far more of an issue I imagine in countries is the average level wealth. It doesn't really matter how equal a country is if the average person can't afford decent healthcare and education for their children. Equally I'd argue that inequality between the top and bottom 20% isn't as important as the actual level of wealth for the bottom 20%.

It's just back to the whole absolute versus relative poverty debate really and sides picking numbers that suit their argument best.

Their thesis is that income differences within a society explain variation in outcomes more significantly than does the general level of affluence. It's worth reading and considering.

nesf · 30-10-2009 11:06PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Their thesis is that income differences within a society explain variation in outcomes more significantly than does the general level of affluence. It's worth reading and considering.

Yup, adding it to my must read list. Thing is, epidemiologists talking about inequality (using economics measures) is like economists talking about diseases. Both sides are prone to missing the subtleties at play due to their training.

There is an awful lot of crap written about inequality though, so it'll be interesting to see an epidemiologist's take on it.

sold · 31-10-2009 08:05AM

Thats why they are fighting tooth and nail against pay cuts. They know their members don't want it and they have to protect their own well paid job.

Tipp Man · 03-11-2009 11:17AM

So does anyone think that Mr O Connor earned his huge 124k salary last night?

Union Leaders Salaries Revealed

Comments